State v. Marrero
| Decision Date | 23 January 1978 |
| Citation | 383 A.2d 131,155 N.J.Super. 567 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Francisco A. MARRERO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, for defendant-appellant (Alan I. Smith, Jersey City, of counsel and on the brief).
William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent (Helen E. Szabo, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges CONFORD, MICHELS and PRESSLER.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of possessing a pistol in an automobile without first having obtained a permit to carry the same in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41 a. The fine imposed of $250 was suspended. Defendant appeals.
In September 1974 defendant was seriously injured when the automobile he was driving hit a utility pole. After he was removed from the automobile, the investigating police officer found a holster containing a loaded .22 caliber automatic pistol on the floor of the car. In October 1975 defendant was indicted for the unlawful possession of the pistol. Defendant, who had never been convicted of crime or even involved with the criminal process, applied for enrollment in the Middlesex County Pretrial Intervention Program. In March 1976, while defendant's application was pending, the State moved the trial of the indictment without objection by defendant. Defendant was represented by an assistant deputy public defender who apparently neither knew nor was informed of defendant's PTI application, which was still pending, even though the assistant deputy public defender representing defendant in connection with his application worked out of the same local office. On March 31, 1976, defendant was found guilty of unlawfully possessing a pistol. On May 10, 1976 a hearing was held on defendant's application for enrollment in the PTI program. The Program Director recommended defendant for enrollment in the program and the Middlesex County Prosecutor concurred in the recommendation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge designated to act on PTI matters granted defendant's application.
Thereafter, on May 24, 1976 defendant appeared for sentencing before the judge who presided at the criminal trial. The trial judge stated that he spoke with the PTI judge, who did not know about the conviction when he granted the defendant's application. In light of this new information the PTI judge felt that the defendant's application was improvidently granted and rescinded his authorization. The trial judge then imposed sentence, fining defendant $250, which was suspended. This appeal followed.
Defendant seeks a reversal of his conviction contending, solely, that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to or move for a trial stay, pending final determination of his PTI application.
We are convinced, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fritz
...services equal to the exercise of normal customary skill and knowledge." Id. at 519, 285 A.2d 234; see also State v. Marrero, 155 N.J.Super. 567, 570, 383 A.2d 131 (App.Div.1978) (trial counsel departed from "the accepted standard of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases"); cf.......
-
Pinho v. Gonzales
...have held that counsel's failure to establish PTI eligibility can support ineffective assistance claims. See State v. Marrero, 155 N.J.Super. 567, 383 A.2d 131, 132 (1978); State v. Cruz, No. A-5184-02T5 (N.J.Super.Ct.2004) The state did not file an answer to Pinho's motion, and the court h......
-
State v. Davis
...that he relied on the State's representations to his detriment. Defendant refers this court to its opinion in State v. Marrero, 155 N.J.Super. 567, 383 A.2d 131 (App.Div.1978), in which we ordered the defendant's placement into PTI as a matter of fundamental fairness and substantial justice......