Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Pizzi

June 1, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
RICHARD A. PIZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, 05-04-00507.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 21, 2007

Before Judges Lintner and Seltzer.

On April 12, 2005, Union County Accusation No. 05-04-00507 charged defendant, Richard Pizzi, an attorney,*fn1 with two counts of second-degree misapplication of entrusted funds, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-15. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant waived indictment and pled guilty to both counts, with the understanding that the State would recommend a maximum nine-year sentence on each count to run concurrently, and defendant would make restitution to his victims.*fn2

Defendant's sentence hearing was held on August 16, 2005. Defense counsel argued that under the then two-week-old decision in Natale II,*fn3 after considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the judge should "under cut" the plea agreement and impose a seven- or eight-year sentence. The judge imposed concurrent eight-year terms. He ordered defendant to make restitution in accordance with the plea agreement. Appropriate fines and penalties were assessed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points:

POINT I

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE HIS REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS UNDER THE PLEA WERE NOT FOLLOWED.

POINT II

THE EIGHT-YEAR TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS TRULY EXCESSIVE FOR THIS DEFENDANT. INSTEAD OF A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE IMPOSED A NON-CUSTODIAL TERM.

We reject defendant's contentions and affirm.

Defendant asserts he should be entitled to withdraw his plea because he "was not advised when he entered the plea that the presumptive sentencing system, which had governed sentencing . . . would no longer be in existence when he came due for sentencing." He argues that, as a result, his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered into because he no longer had the benefit of the presumptive term.

R. 3:21-1 provides that "[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty . . . shall be made before sentencing, but the court may permit it to be made thereafter to correct a manifest injustice." Defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing despite his knowledge of the decision in Natale II. The argument, now belatedly advanced on appeal, was not presented to the judge during sentencing, thus requiring us to view the issue in the context of plain error. R. 2:10-2. More importantly, the comments of defense counsel at sentencing made it abundantly clear that, in his view, the ruling in Natale II required the judge to "under cut" the recommended nine-year sentence by one or two years. The judge did just that, applying and balancing aggravating factor N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(9) (the need to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.