On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Municipal Appeal No. A-14-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Skillman and Winkelstein.
Defendant appeals from a February 2, 2007 order of the Law Division finding him guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, in the Township of Evesham on July 5, 2005 and sentencing him as a third offender to a $2,000 fine, a ten-year suspension of his motor vehicle license, followed by ten years of being required to operate his vehicle only with an ignition interlock device, twelve hours in an Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center, and a 180-day term of imprisonment in the Burlington County Jail.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING MR. DELLPRISCOLI AS A THIRD-TIME OFFENDER FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED BECAUSE HIS FIRST CONVICTION WAS BOTH UNCOUNSELED AND UNIFORMED OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN STATE v. HRYCAK.
A. The trial court erred in convicting Mr. Dellpriscoli because he meets the burden required under the three-part test elucidated in State v. Hrycak.
B. Given the gravity of the offense, and the potential loss of liberty at stake, coupled with the lack of records available, Mr. Dellpriscoli should not be convicted as a third-time offender because of the fundamentally unjust burden the State is attempting to impose on him.
II. MR. DELLPRISCOLI'S MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF UNDER LAURICK IS PROPER AND NOT TIME BARRED UNDER EITHER R. 7:10-2 OR R. 1:1-2 BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS SURROUNDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS SITUATION.
A. Because Mr. Dellpriscoli's first conviction was both uncounseled and uninformed for the right to counsel, in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and concurring case law, Mr. Dellpriscoli's first conviction was illegal.
B. Even assuming that Mr.
Dellpriscoli's original conviction was not illegal, he nevertheless meets the criteria under R. 7:10-2(b)(2).
C. In addition to all of the foregoing, Mr. Dellpriscoli's petition should be heard in the interest of ...