State v. Patel NJ Supreme Court Post Judgement Laurick Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea

State v. Patel:

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules: To secure Post Judgement relief from a possible 3rd offense DWI 6 month jail term and 10 year loss of license.

To secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI conviction,

1. a) a non-indigent defendant must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding,

(1) he was not advised or did not know of his right to counsel and

(2) had he known of his right to counsel, he would have retained a lawyer.

A defendant contending he was indigent must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding:

(1) he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel,

(2) he was entitled to the appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b), and

(3) had he been properly informed of his rights, he would have accepted appointed counsel.

Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the proceeding, to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented. The Court removes the five-year limitation in Laurick petitions and amends Rule 7:10-2(g)(2), effective immediately, to provide the following: “(2) Time Limitations. A petition seeking relief under this Rule may be filed at any time.” Here, Patel’s unrebutted certifications established that his 1994 plea was uncounseled, and he had no obligation to establish that he would not have pled guilty or been convicted at trial had he been represented by counsel. The Court therefore reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1. The right to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed to all defendants charged with DWI. Knowledge of one’s right to counsel is indispensable to the exercise of that right. For that reason, all municipal court judges must “inform the defendant of the right to retain counsel or, if indigent, to have counsel assigned pursuant to [Rule 7:3-2(b)].” R. 7:3-2(a). The court also must ask the defendant “whether legal representation is desired” and record the response “on the complaint.” Ibid. Because of the singular importance of the right to counsel, the denial of counsel is deemed a structural defect in the framework of the proceedings — a defect that cannot be quantitatively assessed and therefore defies a harmless error analysis. A defendant denied the right to counsel does not have to establish prejudice on direct appeal; prejudice is presumed. (pp. 13-16)
2. In Laurick, the Court held that a prior uncounseled DWI conviction could “not be used to increase a defendant’s loss of liberty,” but made clear that there was no impediment to the use of other collateral consequences of the uncounseled conviction, such as a period of license suspension or financial penalties. 120 N.J. at 4. The Court set different standards of proof for indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants who sought to bar the use of the prior uncounseled DWI conviction for custodial sentence enhancement purposes. See id. at 11. The non-indigent defendant must show, like indigent defendants, a “lack of notice as well as the absence of knowledge of the right to be represented by counsel of one’s choosing,” but must also show “that the lack of notice otherwise affected the outcome.” Id. at 11, 17. The Court did not explain its reasons for placing a higher burden on non-indigent defendants. In State v. Hrycak, the Court “reaffirm[ed] [its] holding in Laurick that an uncounseled DWI conviction may not be used to enhance the period of incarceration for a subsequent offense,” restated the Laurick formula, and again set different standards for indigent and non-indigent defendants as to whether prior uncounseled DWI convictions could be used for custodial sentence enhancement purposes. 184 N.J. 351, 354, 362-63 (2005). (pp. 16-21)
3. In State v. Schadewald, the Appellate Division altered the tests for indigent and non- indigent defendants challenging prior uncounseled DWI convictions articulated in Laurick and Hrycak. See 400 N.J. Super. 350, 354-55 (App. Div. 2007). In that case, the Appellate Division held that both indigent and non-indigent defendants must “demonstrate that if they had been represented by counsel, they had a defense to the DWI charge and the outcome would, in all likelihood, have been different.” Id. at 354. The Appellate Division in this case followed the Schadewald paradigm. (pp. 21-22)
4. Schadewald treats equally two classes of similarly situated defendants. That being said, Schadewald is in clear conflict with the holdings in both Laurick and Hrycak and arguably imposes an unduly burdensome standard by requiring that indigent and non- indigent defendants prove that the outcome would have been different had they been represented by counsel. Denial of counsel — here the denial of the opportunity to retain counsel or secure appointed counsel — is a structural defect in the proceedings, not quantifiable by any traditional measurement and therefore not typically susceptible to a harmless-error analysis. And when notice of the right to counsel is not given in DWI cases, to obtain the special form of relief recognized in Laurick, neither indigent nor non- indigent defendants should be required to establish that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had they been given the opportunity to retain counsel or secure appointed counsel. (pp. 22-24)
5. The Court adopts the standards reprinted in the HELD paragraph above and notes that the defendant has the burden of proving that his prior uncounseled DWI conviction was based on the municipal court’s failure to advise him of his right to counsel. If municipal courts retain the records mandated by New Jersey court rules and jurisprudence, determining whether there was compliance with the notice requirements should not be difficult. The defendant must secure the relevant documents to establish a violation of the notice requirement. In the absence of documentary evidence or witnesses with arecollection, the defendant is in a position to do no more than file an affidavit averring that he was not advised of his right to counsel and did not know that he could retain counsel. The defendant who claims he was indigent at the time of the prior proceeding should attest that he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel, and was unable to afford an attorney. In future cases, he also should attach to his affidavit or certification documents that would establish his indigence. (pp. 24-25)
6. In the present case, the Piscataway Municipal Court has indicated that no record remains of whether Patel’s 1994 DWI guilty plea was uncounseled or whether Patel was given notice of his right to counsel and, if indigent, the right to appointed counsel. Patel filed three certifications in the Piscataway Municipal Court in support of his application to bar the use of his 1994 DWI conviction to enhance his custodial term. Patel has made clear in his certifications that had he been advised of his right to counsel, he would have sought the assistance of counsel — preferably appointed counsel — and, if he had resources, retained counsel. Patel’s assertions — like those of the defendant in Laurick — have gone unrebutted. See Laurick, 120 N.J. at 6. Patel has satisfied his burden of showing that his prior uncounseled DWI conviction was caused by the municipal court’s failure to advise him of his right to counsel. (pp. 26-27)
7. The current court rules provide that a petition for Laurick relief “shall not be accepted for filing more than five years after entry of the judgment of conviction or imposition of the sentence sought to be attacked, unless it alleges facts showing that the delay in filing was due to defendant’s excusable neglect.” R. 7:10-2(g)(2); R. 7:10-2(b)(2). In the present case, Patel submits that he sought relief from his prior uncounseled conviction at the only time that it made sense to do so and that therefore any “delay” should be deemed excusable. State v. Bringhurst, 401 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 2008), supports this point. The Bringhurst court reasoned that because “a second or subsequent [DWI] conviction may occur at any time in the future, it would be illogical to apply the Rule’s five-year time limit mechanistically to deny all [Laurick] applications.” Id. at 433. That logic accords with recommendations by the Municipal Court Practice Committee to allow a Laurick petition to be filed at any time. The Court now adopts the language proposed by the Committee and amends in part Rule 7:10-2(g), effective immediately, to provide: