State v. De Lucia, No. A--312

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation63 N.J.Super. 90,164 A.2d 81
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mario DE LUCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. A--312
Decision Date22 September 1960

Page 90

63 N.J.Super. 90
164 A.2d 81
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Mario DE LUCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. A--312.
Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division.
Submitted Sept. 12, 1960.
Decided Sept. 22, 1960.

[164 A.2d 82]

Page 92

Mario De Lucia, appellant, pro se.

Stanley E. Rutkowski, Mercer County Prosecutor, Trenton, for respondent (Edward[164 A.2d 83] J. Phelan, Asst. Prosecutor, Trenton, on the brief).

Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and HETFIELD.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial, without formal answer by the State and without a hearing, of his

Page 93

application for a writ of Habeas corpus by the Superior Court, Law Division. He claims that the court which originally sentenced him did not have jurisdiction with respect to several of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty. He also alleges that, with respect to one offense, he was not properly charged upon his oath before a magistrate. Finally, he urges that upon his apprehension he was illegally detained without warrant or arraignment before a magistrate, and that during this period of illegal detention a confession was forced from him, in violation of his constitutional rights.

On May 9, 1947, eight days after his arrest, defendant signed a written waiver of indictment and trial by jury for the offense of 'Burglary (14 charges).' On May 12, 1947 he was arraigned, before the Mercer County Court of Special Sessions, on 29 specific offenses--including breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving--contained in 14 separate allegations. Defendant pleaded guilty to all but two of the specific offenses charged, and on May 16, 1947 was sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 32 to 45 years.

A chronicle of defendant's prior legal maneuvers reveals periodic visitations upon state and federal courts. In 1954 this court affirmed the denial of defendant's application for the issuance of a writ. He then applied to the United States District Court, which denied his application and was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Application of De Lucia, 221 F.2d 957 (3 Cir. 1955). The United States Supreme Court reversed the affirmance and ordered the District Court to afford defendant a hearing. De Lucia v. State of New Jersey, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S.Ct. 143, 100 L.Ed. 776 (1955). After three days of hearing, during which time defendant's allegations concerning his pleas of guilty in 1947 were 'exhaustively explored,' the District Court denied De Lucia's application. On motion for rehearing, defendant assailed the competency of his court-appointed counsel and the presiding federal judge, and claimed that he was denied effective presentation of his case. The District Court judge decided, in denying the motion,

Page 94

that defendant 'had the burden of proving his charges and he completely failed to carry it,' and his allegations were again found to be without substance.

Many of the points here raised by defendant are repetitious of his allegations in former proceedings. Although the doctrine of Res judicata does not technically apply to Habeas corpus proceedings, a plea based on substantially the same grounds as former appeals, in the absence of any material change of circumstances, results in the ascription of great weight to the prior proceedings. State v. Fontano, 26 N.J.Super. 166, 172, 97 A.2d 498 (App.Div.1953), affirmed 14 N.J. 173, 101 A.2d 559 (1954). Cf. Leith v. Horgan, 13 N.J. 467, 472, 100 A.2d 175 (1953); 38 A.L.R.2d 1440 (1954). Having on a previous occasion considered and rejected defendant's assertions with respect to a coerced confession and denial of the right to counsel, this court may now exercise its power to shield itself from a defendant's abuse of the writ of Habeas corpus. State v. Pohlabel, 40 N.J.Super. 416, 422, 123 A.2d 391 (App.Div.1956); State v. Jefferson, 40 N.J.Super. 466, 471, 123 A.2d 579 (App.Div.1956); Kline v. State, 41 N.J.Super. 391, 397, 125 A.2d 311 (App.Div.1956); Worbetz v. Goodman, 47 N.J.Super. 391, 397, 136 A.2d 1 (App.Div.1957), certification denied 26 N.J. 245, 139 A.2d 471 (1958). We re-emphasize our statement in State v. Forsythe, 55...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Clark, In re, No. S022475
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 29, 1993
    ...relator [citations]." (Worbetz v. Goodman (App.Div.1957) 47 N.J.Super. 391, 136 A.2d 1, 4. See also State v. DeLucia (App.Div.1960) 63 N.J.Super. 90, 164 A.2d 81, 83 ["Having on a previous occasion considered and rejected defendant's assertions ..., this court may now exercise its power to ......
  • Terhune v. Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital, No. A--456
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 23, 1960
    ...medical director is purported to have admitted to her, it is possible (whether or not likely) that when all the plaintiffs' proofs [164 A.2d 81] are in it will appear that a determination could be made that this is so obviously an untoward consequence of careful anesthesis that a lay jury s......
  • Norton v. Green, No. 37326
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 11, 1962
    ...one who pleads guilty to an indictment. State ex rel. Scott v. Alvis, Warden, 156 Ohio St. 387, 102 N.E.2d 845, and State v. De Lucia, 63 N.J.Super. 90, 164 A.2d 81. This principle is especially applicable in cases, such as this, where petitioner, being represented by counsel, pleads not gu......
3 cases
  • Clark, In re, No. S022475
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 29, 1993
    ...relator [citations]." (Worbetz v. Goodman (App.Div.1957) 47 N.J.Super. 391, 136 A.2d 1, 4. See also State v. DeLucia (App.Div.1960) 63 N.J.Super. 90, 164 A.2d 81, 83 ["Having on a previous occasion considered and rejected defendant's assertions ..., this court may now exercise its power to ......
  • Terhune v. Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital, No. A--456
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • September 23, 1960
    ...medical director is purported to have admitted to her, it is possible (whether or not likely) that when all the plaintiffs' proofs [164 A.2d 81] are in it will appear that a determination could be made that this is so obviously an untoward consequence of careful anesthesis that a lay jury s......
  • Norton v. Green, No. 37326
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • July 11, 1962
    ...one who pleads guilty to an indictment. State ex rel. Scott v. Alvis, Warden, 156 Ohio St. 387, 102 N.E.2d 845, and State v. De Lucia, 63 N.J.Super. 90, 164 A.2d 81. This principle is especially applicable in cases, such as this, where petitioner, being represented by counsel, pleads not gu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT