State v. Phillips

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation169 N.J.Super. 452,404 A.2d 1270
Decision Date25 July 1979
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harley V. PHILLIPS, Matthew Smith and Clarence Welden, Jr., Defendants-Appellants. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Deborah PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 452

169 N.J.Super. 452
404 A.2d 1270
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Harley V. PHILLIPS, Matthew Smith and Clarence Welden, Jr.,
Defendants-Appellants.
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Deborah PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued July 16, 1979.
Decided July 25, 1979.

Page 453

Charles E. Viel, Vineland, for defendants-appellants Harley V. Phillips, Matthew Smith and Clarence Welden, Jr.

Christopher H. Riley, Jr., Millville, for defendant-appellant Deborah Peterson, relied on brief filed by other appellants.

No one appeared for plaintiff-respondent in A-894-77 and no brief was filed on behalf of plaintiff-respondent in A-1157-77.

Before Judges SEIDMAN, MORGAN and PRESSLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Harley V. Phillips, Matthew Smith and Clarence Welden, Jr., 1 were all found guilty in municipal court of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, subparagraph (b) in the case of Phillips and subparagraph (a) in the case of Smith and Welden. As permitted by N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.7, each elected to be sentenced under the provisions of the amended statute, L. 1977, C. 29. Phillips was sentenced as

Page 454

a subsequent offender because of a prior conviction for driving while impaired (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(b)). Smith was sentenced as a third offender, having been previously convicted of (a) and (b). Welden was also sentenced as a third offender because of two prior convictions of (b).

Defendants appealed to the County Court, contending that one convicted under the pre-amendment statute of (b) should not be deemed to be convicted of a prior violation under the present statute and thus sentenced as a subsequent offender. The County Court judge disagreed, holding that a person convicted under the current statute is a subsequent offender if he had theretofore been convicted under either (a) or (b). He imposed sentences accordingly, and this appeal followed.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Porreca in his written opinion. 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977). See State v. Culbertson, 156 N.J.Super. 167, 383 A.2d 729 (App.Div.1978). We find no merit in the argument, presented for the first time on appeal, that Culbertson did not consider "the Legislative intent, as embodied in the report of the Motor Vehicle Study Commission," in holding that convictions of (b) are to be considered as prior convictions for sentencing under the amended statute.

Deborah Peterson,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1979). This is so because the law does not punish the defendant for the prior offense, but merely increases the punishment fo......
  • Blair v. Anik Liquors
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • January 24, 1986
    ...and rehabilitation in addition to Page 643 punishment. State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977) aff'd 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 The plaintiffs in this case are actually seeking recovery or indemnification of statutorily imposed punitive sanctions and monet......
  • Com. v. Grady
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 1984
    ...310 N.E.2d 873 (1974); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (1979). Cf. State v. Acton, 665 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Mo.1984) (en banc); State v. Rollinger, 314 N.W.2d 871 The judgment of s......
  • Commonwealth v. Grady
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 1984
    ...310 N.E.2d 873 (1974); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (1979). Cf. State v. Acton, 665 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Mo.1984) (en banc); State v. Rollinger, 314 N.W.2d 871 (S.D.1982). The j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1979). This is so because the law does not punish the defendant for the prior offense, but merely increases the punishment fo......
  • Blair v. Anik Liquors
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • January 24, 1986
    ...and rehabilitation in addition to Page 643 punishment. State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977) aff'd 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 The plaintiffs in this case are actually seeking recovery or indemnification of statutorily imposed punitive sanctions and monet......
  • Com. v. Grady
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 1984
    ...310 N.E.2d 873 (1974); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (1979). Cf. State v. Acton, 665 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Mo.1984) (en banc); State v. Rollinger, 314 N.W.2d 871 The judgment of s......
  • Commonwealth v. Grady
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 1984
    ...310 N.E.2d 873 (1974); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (1979). Cf. State v. Acton, 665 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Mo.1984) (en banc); State v. Rollinger, 314 N.W.2d 871 (S.D.1982). The j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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