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 of New Jersey v. Robert Moffett

January 11, 2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT MOFFETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, Municipal Appeal No. A-16-07-09.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 14, 2011

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

Defendant Robert Moffett appeals from an order dated March 8, 2010, denying his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition to vacate his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) on August 16, 1986. On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE DEFENDANT'S EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.

POINT II

PURSUANT TO THE MANDATES OF LAURICK,*fn1 THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO BE MADE APPRISED OF THE CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE ENHANCED PENALTIES SHOULD HE BE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED.

Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we have concluded that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion. R. 2:11- 3(e)(2). We therefore affirm with only the following comments. In a certification dated January 20, 2009, defendant presented the following reasons for vacating his guilty plea:

I submit this certification in support of my application to vacate and dismiss my plea of guilty predicated on the fact that it was not knowing and/or voluntary.

By way of factual background I received a charge on August 16, 1986 for driving while intoxicated. I presented on the matter on or about December 8, 1986, at which time I do not recall being represented by counsel, nor do I recall being provided with notice as to enhanced penalties. My specific recollection of the events is that I entered a plea which was not voluntary, and/or knowing and/or moreover with full notice and knowledge as to future enhancements as a result of subsequent driving while intoxicated and/or under the influence charges.

Based on the fact that I was not represented by counsel, I do not believe that my plea was knowing and voluntary. Moreover I do not recall the Court ever advising me as to proper notice and knowledge as to the fact that my plea could have subsequent ramifications should I be charged in the future with driving while either intoxicated and/or under the influence. In fact it is my specific recollection that I was never apprised of the enhanced penalties associated with a second and/or third offense.

Based on the aforementioned and the fact that I do not recall having been represented by counsel and not apprised of my future rights, I respectfully request pursuant to Laurick the Court vacate ...


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.