Garofone, In re, A--109
| Decision Date | 04 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A--109,A--109 |
| Citation | 200 A.2d 101,42 N.J. 244 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Guido GAROFONE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Guido GAROFONE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. The STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Peter Murray, Asst. County Pros., for appellant (Brendan T. Byrne, Essex County Pros., attorney).
Samuel Weitzman, Newark, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered
Garofone was tried and convicted in a municipal court upon five charges. Four were for crimes as to which Garofone waived indictment and trial by jury, and the fifth was for a disorderly persons offense. Upon Habeas corpus, the trial court found a denial of due process because counsel was not furnished the defendant. In re Garofone, 80 N.J.Super. 259, 193 A.2d 398 (Law Div.1963). We certified the State's appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.
It is conceded that Garofone was indigent. The trial court found (1) that Garofone was told by the magistrate that counsel would be assigned to him if he so wished; but (2) that the right to counsel was not waived because it did not appear that Garofone was expressly asked whether he affirmatively waived his right to assigned counsel and elected to proceed without that aid. We gather the trial court may have doubted that the defendant really understood he could have counsel assigned to him without cost and hence concluded that a 'waiver' could be found only if there was elicited from him 'a conscious, coherent, affirmative indication that he does not desire the assistance of counsel' (80 N.J.Super. at p. 279, 193 A.2d at p. 410). At any rate, we need not consider the subject of waiver beyond saying that our reading of the record persuades us that although Garofone was told of his right to be represented by counsel, he was not told that he could have counsel assigned without cost. That being so, we accept the trial court's ultimate conclusion that there was no waiver.
As noted above, four of the five offenses were crimes, and as to them the right of an indigent to assigned counsel is clear. R.R. 1:12--9(a). The trial court here held that the same right must be accorded to one charged with a disorderly persons offense notwithstanding such a charge is not one of crime. Since here this charge was tried along with charges of crime, the right to assigned counsel should not be disputed. We reserve, however, the question whether one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt
...court proceedings with disorderly person offenses are entitled to have counsel assigned to them. R. 3:27--2; In re Garofone, 42 N.J. 244, 246, 200 A.2d 101 (1964). The lower courts held that they were not and we certified the ensuing appeals while they were awaiting argument in the Appellat......
-
State v. Zucconi
...difference between 'quasi-crimes' and crimes, and refused to apply to the former doctrines applicable to the latter. In re Garofone, 42 N.J. 244, 246, 200 A.2d 101 (1964); State v. Currie, 41 N.J. 531, 197 A.2d 678 (1964); Sawran v. Lennon, 19 N.J. 606, 118 A.2d 10 (1955); State v. Maier, 1......
-
In re Perrin
...of the citizen is in jeopardy in either case. In re Garofone, 80 N.J.Super. 259, 271-72, 193 A.2d 398 (Law Div.1963), aff'd, 42 N.J. 244, 200 A.2d 101 (1964) (citations "`Quasi-criminal' is not an empty label. The classification is in no sense illusory; it has reference to the safeguards in......
-
In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP OF C. M. a/k/a C. Y. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Passaic County, New Jersey
...State v. Murphy, 87 N.J.L. 515, 94 A. 640 (E. & A. 1915); In re Garofone, 80 N.J.Super. 259, 193 A.2d 398 (Law Div.1963), aff'd 42 N.J. 244, 200 A.2d 101 (1964); State v. Davis, 88 N.J.Super. 528, 212 A.2d 859 (Law Div.1965), rev'd on other grounds 92 N.J.Super. 289, 223 A.2d 208 Such a wai......