Choosing the Right Attorney to Handle Your Motor

Like anything else choosing the right attorney to handle your motor vehicle summons might make all the difference in the world.  Choosing an attorney with many years of experience might make the difference between a fantastic disposition of the motor vehicle charges as opposed to an adequate result.

Like all areas of the law the handling of motor vehicle summons in municipal court takes a level of experience and skill which is acquired over many years of practice. 

Attorney Sanzone has handled thousands of motor vehicle cases in his 26-years of practice and has achieved many very favorable dispositions.

Just last week for example Attorney Sanzone achieved the complete dismissal of a CDS in a motor vehicle charge and possession of CDS in municipal court, (Somerset County) after filing a motion to suppress evidence.  On the same day, in Hudson County, in other case municipal court achieved a complete dismissal of the charge of leaving the scene of the accident in which property damage was allegedly made.

In this time of attorney direct mailings it is important the client research carefully the attorney’s track record and years of experience before retaining an attorney to handle your motor vehicle case.  Like all decisions, choosing the attorney who has the lowest price might not be the smartest decision. 

Today, yes, even motor vehicle convictions can have adverse consequences on obtaining a good paying job, not to mention the collateral consequences of having a bad driving record. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A criminal defense attorney in New Jersey who handles motor vehicle case in all cities and towns in New Jersey, including Bayonne, Jersey City, Kearny, and all other cities in Hudson County.

Elizabeth New Jersey Office, (908) 354-7006
Bayonne, New Jersey Office, (201) 240-5716

 

 

Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

New Jersey Appellate Court Gives a Brake to Unlicensed New Jersey Drivers Caught Driving Without a Driver’s License.

Brought to you as a public service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

On August 11, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division held in State v. Armando Carreon that any person convicted of being an unlicensed driver while driving can only be sentenced to a jail sentence or fine but not both.  This is good news for never licensed drivers because most municipal court judges will interested in getting a fine from the convicted motorist.  If so, the municipal court judge will not be foreclosed for also giving a custodial term sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.

In this particular case which the appellate division reversed the sentence, because the defendant was a third time offender he was sentenced to a fine of $756.00, plus court costs, and a ten-day jail sentence.

For people who have been previously licensed to drive the statute states that the defendant will be either fined or custodial term, but not both, for violators who have previously been licensed to drive.

If you have been charged with a motor vehicle offense you should consult with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorneyhttp://www.criminaldefensenj.com to help optimize the chances of obtaining a favorable result for your case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Elizabeth, New Jersey, (908) 354-7006

United States Supreme Court Holds No Canine Sniff of Front Porch without Warrant.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., as a public service.

The facts of Florida v. Jardines (2013) are simple and straight forward.  The police in Florida took a drug-sniffing canine to the front porch of the defendant’s home to see whether the dog would make a positive hit for drugs.  The dog did, and based on the that positive hit, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home.  In searching the home pursuant to the warrant the police discovered marijuana plants, and the defendant was charged with trafficking in CDS.

The evidence was suppressed by the lower courts in Florida and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.  The United States took certiorari and our highest court agreed that the police had no right to bring the drug-sniffing dog on the defendant’s porch without a warrant.  That any search of a home or its curtilage without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Following Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984), which held that any area immediately surrounding and associated with the house is part of the home for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection.

If you have been arrested as result of a search of your home, office or motor vehicle without a warrant you must seek competent legal advice from an experienced criminal defense attorney, to see if your fourth amendment rights have been violated and your chances of obtaining a dismissal based on a motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Hackensack, Morristown, Somerville, Bayonne, Union City, Clifton, Roselle Park, Clark, Westfield, Union, Short Hills, Milburn.

Dated: December 26, 2013

Quote of the day:  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Robert Kennedy

New Jersey Supreme Court Takes Step Backwards In Protection of the Accused Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

In State v. Miller, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a step backwards in defense of the accused right to effective assistance of counsel by affirming a conviction in which the public defender, on the day of trial, met the defendant-client.

The Supreme Court in a tortuous ruling held that because this was “a simple case”, for whatever that means, because no case in which the defendant is facing state prison sentence is simple, that it was not ineffective for the public defender not to have discussed the case prior to the trial date.  This decision is amazingly naive to the realities of a criminal trial.  How could a criminal defense attorney competently defend a defendant without knowing the facts of the case, as told by the defendant?  How would the attorney know which witnesses needed to be subpoaned?  How would the attorney know what strategy to use?  How would the attorney know what motions needed to be filed?  How would the attorney know anything about the client’s personal history, for example, possible affirmative defense, insanity, intoxication, self-defense, etc? 

In fact, this was not a simple case for the defendant because he was sentenced to 5-years in state prison after h is conviction.  In this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to move the trial calendar at the expense of the defendant’s constitutional rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Every defendant, rich or poor, is entitled to vigorous and competent legal representation.  This is a sad day for the rights of the accused in New Jersey.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.www.criminaldefensenj.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Lawyer, NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne, Elizabeth, Hackensack, New Brunswick, Newark, Patterson, Morristown, Toms River, Freehold, Somerville, Passaic, East Orange, Orange, Irvington, Bayonne, Jersey City, Union City, North Bergen, Harrison, West Orange, Union, Clark

Excerpts of Criminal Jury Summations by New Jersey Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Excerpts of criminal jury summations in State v. Ngyuen, Morris County, N.J., by attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. The actual summations lasted 2 1/2 hours. The Defendant was found not guilty of all second degree charges, and the defendant did not spend one day in State Prison. The case tried by the the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office Organized Crime Division. The State offer before trial was a five year state prison sentence.  Watch at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdTXwkxFsZE

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth, New Jersey (908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com