## Facts

- Police found Edwin A. Torres dead on a Camden sidewalk with multiple gunshot wounds to the head and neck.
- An eyewitness who knew Edwin Urbina identified him as the shooter; Urbina was sixteen at the time.
- Urbina was charged in adult court with first-degree murder and related weapons offenses.
- Under a plea agreement, the State amended the top charge to first-degree aggravated manslaughter, with a recommended sentence not exceeding 17.5 years.
- During the plea colloquy, Urbina described an argument in which Torres allegedly smacked him and, as Urbina turned to leave, drew a firearm; Urbina then drew his own handgun and fired six shots, killing Torres.
- Defense counsel stated police found no gun on Torres and that, after consultation, self-defense was not considered viable.
- The prosecutor asserted an eyewitness said Torres was unarmed and requested an express waiver of self-defense in the plea; Urbina agreed and signed an amended plea form.
- The trial court accepted the plea and imposed a 17.5-year sentence.
- The Appellate Division affirmed in a split decision; the dissent argued the plea was accompanied by a claim of innocence and the colloquy was insufficient.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted review as of right based on the dissent.

## Issues

1. Whether Urbina’s plea-colloquy narrative implying self-defense rendered the factual basis for a guilty plea to aggravated manslaughter inadequate.
2. Whether, when a defendant’s plea narrative asserts or implies a complete defense, the court must reject the plea or conduct a more searching inquiry to resolve the inconsistency.
3. Whether Urbina’s purported waiver of self-defense was knowing and voluntary given the unresolved conflict between his narrative and the State’s account.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division.
- The Court held that Urbina’s plea narrative raised a contemporaneous claim of self-defense that undermined the factual basis for aggravated manslaughter.
- The Court held the trial court failed to conduct an adequate colloquy to reconcile the asserted defense with the offense elements and to ensure a knowing, voluntary waiver.
- The Court vacated the guilty plea and resulting conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A guilty plea must be supported by a factual basis that establishes the essential elements of the offense and is consistent with guilt.
- If a defendant’s plea-colloquy account asserts or clearly implies a claim of innocence through a complete defense (including self-defense), the court must reject the plea or conduct a more searching inquiry to resolve the inconsistency.
- A written or conclusory waiver of an affirmative defense is insufficient when the defendant’s narrative affirmatively suggests justification; the court must confirm through colloquy that the waiver is knowing and voluntary.
- The court must elicit an internally consistent factual basis that both satisfies the required mental state for the offense and negates any asserted complete defense; unresolved conflicts in the record can render the plea invalid.
- When a juvenile faces a lengthy prison term, the court bears heightened responsibility to ensure a clear, consistent factual basis and a reliable waiver of any potential complete defense.

## Conclusion

Because Urbina’s plea-colloquy narrative suggested he fired in self-defense and the trial court did not resolve that inconsistency or secure a knowing, voluntary waiver supported by a clear factual basis for aggravated manslaughter, the Supreme Court vacated the plea and conviction and remanded for further proceedings.


State v. Urbina, 221 N.J. 509, 115 A.3d 261 (N.J. 2015)