NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

PER CURIAM.

In these back-to-back appeals, consolidated for purposes of a single opinion, defendants Tyrique Beckett and Mashhur Hayes appeal the December 29, 2014 decisions by Judge Mark H. Sandson denying their respective motions to withdraw their guilty pleas.

Beckett argues:

Hayes similarly argues:

Having considered the parties' arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards, we affirm.

On December 1, 2013, four masked men conducted a home invasion and armed robbery in Galloway Township. The victims told police that they recognized Beckett, Hayes, and Leonard Wilson as the assailants because they attended a party at the house two days earlier. One of the victims noted that during the robbery, Wilson referred to Beckett as "Rique," a shortened version of his first name. Also, a victim maintained that he recognized Hayes and Wilson from attending the same high school. Furthermore, Wilson and a juvenile accomplice in the robbery both gave statements to police claiming defendants were involved in the robbery.

On September 3, 2014, defendants each pled guilty to one count of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, pursuant to a non-negotiated plea,1 with the understanding from Judge Sandson that he would sentence them as second-degree offenders to the minimum term of five years in prison subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendants had second thoughts about their guilty pleas, and thereafter filed separate motions to withdraw their pleas.

After consolidating oral argument for both motions, Judge Sandson entered orders denying the motions on December 29. In separate and thorough written decisions of the same date, the judge applied the four-factor Slater test:

Judge Sandson concluded that neither defendant "met his burden of showing [under Slater] that the interests of justice entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea." In particular, the judge noted that defendants' claims of innocence are bald assertions, unsupported by any specific, credible evidence. The judge found that Beckett's claim that he was intimidated and coerced into pleading guilty was contrary to his plea colloquy. As for Hayes, the judge found his claim that he did not understand that his right to trial would be waived by pleading guilty was similarly contradicted by his plea colloquy. Although defendants entered into non-negotiated pleas, the judge reasoned that they were receiving a substantial benefit by his agreement to sentence their first-degree offenses to the lowest range of a second-degree offense. Since defendants did not satisfy any of the first three factors, the judge did not consider whether the plea withdrawals "would result in either unfair prejudice to the State or unfair advantage to" defendants.

Defendants were later sentenced to five-year NERA terms as Judge Sandson had advised them at their pleas. This appeal followed.

The standard to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing is in the interest of justice. State v. Howard, 110 N.J. 113, 123-24 (1988) (citation omitted). Accordingly, "courts are to exercise their discretion liberally to allow plea withdrawals[]" and "in a close case, the scales should usually tip in favor of defendant." State v. Munroe, 210 N.J. 429, 441 (2012) (quoting State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 156 (2007)). Nevertheless, the Munroe Court explained that "[l]iberality in exercising discretion does not mean an abdication of all discretion, and, accordingly, any plea-withdrawal motion requires a fact-specific analysis[.]" Id. at 441-42 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant has the burden of establishing and demonstrating "`a plausible basis for his request' and a good-faith basis for `asserting a defense on the merits.'" Id. at 442 (quoting Slater, supra, 198 N.J. at 156). The decision to grant or deny a motion to retract a guilty plea is discretionary, and is governed by the noted four Slater factors. See State v. Lipa, 219 N.J. 323, 331-32 (2014).

Guided by these standards, we conclude substantially for the sound reasons expressed by Judge Sandson in his written decisions that defendants failed to show that enforcement of their respective plea agreements would be contrary to the interests of justice. Hence, the judge did not abuse his discretion in rejecting defendants' requests to withdraw their guilty pleas.

Affirmed.