New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Alert From the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Presented as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

 

Any incarcerated defendant who is serving an extended term based on the prosecutor filing an extended term application based on a second conviction for intent to distribute within 500 feet of public housing must file PCR to have extended term rescinded.

The Appellate Division in State v. Patterson (May 9, 2014) recently held that the trial judge imposed an illegal sentence when the prosecutor moved for an extended term based on N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f).  The appellate division ruled that section 6(f) does not list the public facility offense as one of the offenses allowing for an extended term.

In this case the trial judge at the request of the prosecutor sentenced the defendant for his second degree conviction as a first degree crime, sentencing him to 12-years in state prison with five-years of parole ineligibility.

Any incarcerated defendant having been sentenced to an extended term based on the prosecutor filing the extended term application based on 2C:43-6(f), is entitled to a reduction of his or her sentence.

This post is being submitted as a public service as a general statement of New Jersey Criminal Law.  Note, this post is not be submitted as promising or guaranteeing any specific legal result, since each case is uniquely different, and results may vary from case to case.

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney

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

Serving, Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, Passaic, Somerset, Morris counties in New Jersey

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Jail Credits-Department of Corrections Failure to Lodge Detainer for Out-of-Court Sentence for New Jersey Sentence

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections routinely decides that all out-of-court sentences that are being served out-of-state must run consecutive unless ordered otherwise by the courts.

Accordingly, when a defendant is release from custody from an out of state sentence the defendant will be brought back to New Jersey to start or continue serving his New Jersey sentence.

However, the law in New Jersey is to the contrary.  In New Jersey it is not the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) that can make that decision but the New Jersey Superior Court which can only determine whether out of state sentence is to run concurrent or consecutive to a New Jersey Sentence.

In a recent case a defendant was released by the Department of Corrections of Pennsylvania and was free for six months.  After six months the defendant was picked up on a warrant in which he was brought back to New Jersey to continue his New Jersey sentence in which he escaped.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the DOC to give him credit for the six months in which he was free because the DOC failed to properly lodge a detainer while the defendant was in custody in Pennsylvania.  In the alternative the defendant requesting that his entire Pennsylvania sentence run concurrent to his New Jersey sentences.  The Superior Court in Union County ruled that the defendant was entitled to the six months that the defendant was free since New Jersey filed to properly lodge the detainer while the defendant was in custody in Pennsylvania.

The controlling case with his issue is Breeden v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 132 N.J. 457 (1993), which held that issues of comity between states as to whether sentences should run concurrent or consecutive must be decided by the original New Jersey sentencing court.  Breeden v. New Jersey, 132 N.J. at 459.  Further, the time limits set forth in R. 3:21-10 do not apply for the relief the Defendant seeks. Breeden v. New Jersey, 132 N.J. at 470; See, Pressler & Verniero, 2014 N.J. Court Rules, Comment 3:21-10(2.5).  As the court in Breeden held under no circumstances shall the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”) decide whether a sentence is concurrent or consecutive. Breeden v. New Jersey, 132 N.J. at 469

The defendant argued in his motion that the defendant is entitled to jail credit for the time served under the Pennsylvania sentence under the general principals of comity.  Further, the sentence in Pennsylvania served the penal interest of New Jersey.

In Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371 (9^th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on an appeal from a denial of the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus that the defendant was entitled to jail credit from the time that the defendant was at

large after being erroneously released by state officials after his completion of his sentence.  This rational has been followed in the Third Circuit in Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310 (3^rd. Cir. 2006). 

Tip of the Day:  In the plea agreement write, concurrent and coterminous.  Coterminous is defined as "coextensive in time or meaning."  Black's Law Dictionary 374 (8th Ed. 2004).  Sentences that have been ordered to be served coterminously have been understood to "coterminate" or end at the same time as the previously imposed sentence.  See Joiner v. State, 625 So.2d 1173 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)

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

Office No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No.  (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, (Union County) N.J. 07207

Appellate Court Reverses Child Sexual Assault Conviction When Trial Court Fails to Properly Question Child As To Whether She Understood the Difference between a Truth And a Lie

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

The Appellate Division on April 22, 2014, in an unpublished opinion, State v. Bueso, reverses a Union County jury verdict find the defendant guilty of first degree sexual assault.

In this case the trial judge inadequately questioned the seven-year old alleged victim when he asked her whether she knew the difference between a round book and a square book.  Specifically, the trial judge showed the alleged victim a book and told her that it was round.  He than asked her if that was true, and she said that it was a lie.  That limited inquiry satisfied the judge that she knew the difference between a truth and a lie.

At the beginning of the alleged victim’s testimony the prosecutor was allowed to ask a series rehearsed leading questions which attempted to show that the alleged victim understood that her testimony had to be truthful.

However, the appellate division in reversing the conviction held that such a limited inquiry only ascertained whether the alleged victim knew the geometry, and was insufficient to determine whether the alleged victim understood her moral duty to tell the truth during the court proceedings.

Even though there was no objection by defense counsel to this inquiry, the plain error standard applied (State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541 (2004), nevertheless the error was of such a consequences as having the clear capacity to produce an unjust verdict, and hence, a reversal was required.  The court cited State v. G.C. 188 N.J. 118, 131 (2006), citing that a child witness has to give testimony that he or she understands that there is a special obligation to tell the truth.  Also cited was State v. Zamorsky, 159 N.J. Super. 273, 280 (App. Div. 1978).  In that case the court required that the trial judge must inquire as to whether the child witness understands this special obligation.  In other words, the judge must perform this task with care and not in a pro forma or perfunctory manner.  In other words, the question is not whether the child knows the difference between a truth and a lie, but rather does he or she known that during his or her testimony that he or she has the moral responsibility to tell the truth.

Defending someone falsely accused of child abuse or sexual assault is the most challenging and difficult cases to defendant because most jurors believe what they are expected to believe, and often convict out of emotions to protect an alleged victim.  Often the jury’s duty to convict only if the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt is ignored by the jury.  Further, jurors often mistakenly believe that child witnesses only tell the truth, and would not make it up.  However, studies have proven over and over again that child witnesses can be very easily manipulated for numerous reasons.  If you are faced with such a serious charge who must retained an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney.

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Elizabeth (Union, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Bergen, Middlesex County) New Jersey

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Dated: April 23, 2014

Wrongly Accused of a Crime, You are Not the Only One.

Prepared as a Pubic Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., to the People.

Innocent people are unjustly arrested everyday in the United States.  Police don’t always get it right, they make mistakes; they of course are only human.  In some cases unfortunately police officers fabricate a case.   This may be done for many reasons but some of the reasons may be that the police just want to close the case and charge someone  that they believe is a  “bad guy” anyway, so what does it matter.  Shocking, yes, but is a fact of reality and happens more than we think.  Yes shocking law enforcement is a competitive business and some cops are looking to make a name for themselves, get in the news paper, make lots of overtime, or make detective, or stay a detective.   Of course most police officers are hard working, and perform their duty with honor and integrity, but even these officers make mistakes, become to zealous or get lazy or sloppy in their investigation.

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been practicing criminal defense in New Jersey for 23-years and has had many cases in which innocent people have been unjustly accused, and exonerated due to the tireless efforts and skill of Attorney Sanzone.  Whether it is with the wrongful planting of evidence by the police, false and fabricated confession planned by the police, misidentification, overbroad indictments, are only some of the reasons, Attorney Sanzone has successfully obtained dismissals and acquittals of some of his criminal clients.

The formula of experience, dedication and meticulous preparation is the method in which these results are obtained.  If you or someone whom you care about has been wrongly accused of a crime, you must make the most important decision in your life in retaining an experienced and affordable New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Criminal Law Defense Attorney Serving, Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, Passaic, Somerset, Mercer, Gloucester, Cumberland, Atlantic, Cape May counties.