State v. Patel

• Decision Date: 07 August 2019
• Docket Number: 081069,A-13 September Term 2018
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charudutt J. PATEL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

239 N.J. 424

217 A.3d 1143

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Charudutt J. PATEL, Defendant-Appellant.

A-13 September Term 2018

081069

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued April 23, 2019

Decided August 7, 2019

Victor A. Rotolo argued the cause for appellant (Rotolo Karch Law, attorneys; Victor A. Rotolo, Lebanon, E. Carr Cornog, III, William E. Reutelhuber, and Matthew R. Marotta, on the briefs).

Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Patrick F. Galdieri, II, of counsel and on the briefs).

Lila B. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Lila B. Leonard, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Every defendant charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, is guaranteed the right to retain counsel or, if indigent, the right to appointed counsel in municipal court.¹ State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351, 362, 877 A.2d 1209 (2005). In a DWI case, the guiding hand of counsel is essential to safeguard fundamental rights in our adversarial system of justice, such as the right to a fair plea or trial proceeding.

To ensure the efficient administration of justice in our municipal courts, judges are directed to "inform the defendant of the right to retain counsel or, if indigent, to have counsel assigned." R. 7:3-2(a); see also Hrycak, 184 N.J. at 362, 877 A.2d 1209. Judges are also required to ask the defendant "whether legal representation is desired" and to have the response "recorded on the complaint." R. 7:3-2(a).

Repeat DWI offenders are subject to enhanced custodial sentences, license suspensions, and financial penalties. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2)-(3). We held in State v. Laurick that a defendant is not subject to an enhanced custodial sentence for a second or subsequent DWI conviction if he was not advised of his right to counsel in an earlier DWI proceeding and entered an uncounseled guilty plea or went to trial without counsel. 120 N.J. 1, 16-17, 575 A.2d 1340 (1990). Under this special form of relief, the defendant is not relieved of enhanced financial and administrative penalties. Id. at 16, 575 A.2d 1340.

Since Laurick, our courts have struggled to establish clear standards for both indigent and non-indigent defendants who seek relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a second or subsequent DWI based on a claimed denial of notice of the right to counsel in an earlier DWI case. To receive this special form of relief from an uncounseled prior DWI conviction, we have imposed different standards on indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants. See Hrycak, 184 N.J. at 363, 877 A.2d 1209. Only uncounseled non-indigent defendants are required to show that the outcome would have been different if counsel had been retained. Ibid. We can find no justification for such an asymmetrical approach.

The present case provides us with the opportunity to give clearer guidance to indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants who face an enhanced custodial sentence based on an earlier uncounseled DWI conviction. We now hold that to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI conviction, a non-indigent defendant must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding, (1) he was not advised or did not know of his right to counsel and (2) had he known of his right to counsel, he would have retained a lawyer. A defendant contending he was indigent must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding (1) he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel, (2) he was entitled to the appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b), and (3) had he been properly informed of his rights, he would have accepted appointed counsel. Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the proceeding, to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented.

I.

A.

In 2015, defendant Charudutt Patel was charged in two separate instances with DWI -- in Tewksbury Township in January and in Hillsborough Township five months later. The assignment judge of the vicinage consolidated both cases for disposition in the Tewksbury Municipal Court.

Patel had twice before been convicted of DWI. In 1994, he pled guilty to DWI in the Piscataway Municipal Court.² As a consequence of his guilty plea, his license was suspended for six months, and he was fined $495. In 2010, Patel pled guilty to DWI in the North Brunswick Municipal Court. Because of the passage of more than ten years between the first and second convictions, Patel was sentenced as a first-time offender to serve twelve hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and fined $764. See N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) (providing that, for sentencing purposes, a second DWI conviction is treated as a first DWI conviction if more than ten years have passed between the first and second offenses). Additionally, Patel received a three-month license suspension.

The two 2015 DWI charges exposed Patel to potential third and fourth DWI convictions. For a third and subsequent DWI conviction, Patel faced a 180-day term of imprisonment, a ten-year license suspension, and significant financial and administrative penalties. Patel claimed that his 1994 conviction in the Piscataway Municipal Court was uncounseled and therefore could not be used for custodial enhancement purposes pursuant to Laurick, 120 N.J. at 4, 575 A.2d 1340 (holding that "a prior DWI conviction that was uncounseled in violation of court policy may not be used to increase a defendant's loss of liberty"). Thus, for Laurick purposes, Patel contended that he stood before the Tewksbury Municipal Court as a second-time offender.

In 2016, Patel filed a Laurick motion in the Piscataway Municipal Court to bar the use of his allegedly uncounseled 1994 DWI guilty plea to enhance any custodial sentence in the pending DWI cases in the Tewksbury Municipal Court. See R. 7:10-2(g)(1) ("A post-conviction petition to obtain relief from an enhanced custodial term based on a prior conviction shall be brought in the court where the prior conviction was entered."). In support of his Laurick motion, Patel filed two certifications in which he made the following averments. At the time of his 1994 DWI guilty plea, Patel was a twenty-eight-year-old recent immigrant from India, having moved to the United States four years earlier. He lived with his wife in an apartment, was unemployed, "and had no money to ... hire an attorney." His wife paid the rent, and they "were barely scraping by." He appeared in the Piscataway Municipal Court without an attorney, and the municipal court judge did not advise him of his right to retain one. Patel did retain an attorney in 2010 to represent him on the DWI charge in North Brunswick.

In 2016, no documents remained in the Piscataway Municipal Court to disprove Patel's certifications. In a handwritten note, the municipal court administrator advised that "[a]fter 15 years all DWI files are sent for destruction. No transcripts are available." Through counsel, Patel asserted to the present Piscataway Municipal Court judge that in 1994, without the advice of counsel, he "just assumed that he had to plead guilty" to the DWI charge.

The court denied Patel's Laurick motion. In doing so, it explained that not only had Patel failed to present a claim of innocence to the 1994 DWI charge, but also that the State would suffer undue prejudice because of the age of the case and the destruction of documents. The court added that there remained several unknowns: whether Patel consulted with an attorney and whether the 1994 municipal court judge advised him of his right to counsel.

Patel filed a motion for reconsideration and a third certification to clarify his earlier certifications. He asserted that in 1994, "the Judge never advised me that I had a right to retain an attorney nor did he advise me that I had a right to an appointed attorney at no charge. Therefore, I simply pled guilty." Patel added, "Had I known that I could have had an attorney appointed for me at no charge I would have taken advantage of that option."

The court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that in the absence of municipal court records, Patel's certifications were insufficient to prove that he was denied notice of his right to counsel twenty-two years earlier and that, in any event, he should have filed his Laurick motion in 2010 when he was charged with his second DWI in North Brunswick.

B.

Patel appealed to the Middlesex County, Law Division. In denying the appeal, the court stated that Patel was not entitled to relief because his certifications did not assert that he had a viable defense to the 1994 DWI charge and because he did not establish that the outcome would have been different if he had the benefit of counsel.

C.

In December 2016, Patel pled guilty in Tewksbury Municipal Court to the Tewksbury DWI charge. The court sentenced Patel, as a third-time offender, to 180 days in the county jail, suspended his license for ten years, and imposed the requisite fines and administrative penalties. See N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3). The remaining charges, including the Hillsborough DWI charge, were dismissed. The court stayed the custodial portion of the sentence pending Patel's appeal.

D.

The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the Law Division "correctly determined [that Patel] failed to sustain his burden of establishing entitlement to Laurick relief." The court held that Patel had the obligation of "showing he had a defense to the DWI charge or in all likelihood the result would have been different if he had counsel for his 1994 DWI proceeding," citing State v. Schadewald, 400 N.J. Super. 350, 354-55, 947 A.2d 657 (App. Div. 200...