Court emphasizes limits of attorney duty when client repeatedly claims U.S. citizenship. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance when she relied on a defendant’s repeated assertions of U.S. citizenship during sentencing, even though the defendant later revealed he was born in Mexico. The decision, issued on July 22, 2025, resolves the high-profile case of State v. Juan C. Hernandez-Peralta, emphasizing the balance between attorney responsibility and client representations.
The case began in 2019 when Juan Hernandez-Peralta pled guilty to three counts of third-degree burglary and one count of second-degree robbery. During the plea process, Hernandez-Peralta confirmed multiple times that he was a U.S. citizen, including to the court, his plea counsel, and on official plea paperwork. Sentencing counsel, Carol Wentworth of the Public Defender’s Office, reviewed the presentence report with him, which noted he was born in Mexico but did not explicitly contradict his claim of U.S. citizenship.
Following violations of Recovery Court Probation, Hernandez-Peralta revealed his birthplace as Mexico, prompting legal questions regarding whether his sentencing counsel had been required to independently investigate his citizenship status and warn him of immigration consequences. Hernandez-Peralta later filed for post-conviction relief, asserting that counsel’s failure to investigate rendered her assistance ineffective and prejudiced his ability to make an informed plea.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision authored by Justice Rachel Wainer Apter, disagreed. The majority concluded that counsel’s performance was reasonable under the circumstances, noting that Hernandez-Peralta’s repeated statements claiming U.S. citizenship and the absence of any contradictory information in the presentence report did not require further inquiry. The Court explained that under the Strickland standard, proving ineffective assistance requires both deficient performance and resulting prejudice, and neither element was satisfied.
“Reasonable professional assistance does not require the best of attorneys — it simply requires that counsel’s performance is not so deficient as to render the trial unfair,” Justice Wainer Apter wrote. The opinion stressed that no precedent imposes a constitutional duty on sentencing counsel to independently verify citizenship when the defendant affirmatively asserts U.S. citizenship.
Justices Michael Noriega and Douglas Fasciale dissented, arguing that the Sixth Amendment mandates more than surface-level questioning. The dissent emphasized that counsel should conduct a reasonable investigation when material facts suggest a possible discrepancy, highlighting concerns about legal status for a defendant born outside the United States.
The ruling clarifies the scope of attorney obligations during sentencing in New Jersey and underscores the weight courts place on defendant representations when assessing counsel performance. Legal experts note that the decision reinforces the idea that attorneys are not required to independently verify facts that a client repeatedly affirms, though it leaves open debate about situations involving potential immigration consequences.
Those interested in updates on New Jersey legal developments, as well as cultural and community news, can explore additional coverage at https://explorenewjersey.org/category/law-order/, where legal news is often featured alongside the state’s vibrant arts and music scene.
The Hernandez-Peralta decision serves as a reminder for defendants to provide accurate information to counsel and courts, while also offering guidance on the limits of attorney investigation during sentencing. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to influence how similar claims of ineffective assistance are evaluated across the state.
