State v. Rinaldi, A--53
| Decision Date | 23 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A--53,A--53 |
| Citation | 156 A.2d 28,58 N.J.Super. 209 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph RINALDI, Defendant-Appellant. . Considered |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Before Judges GOLDMANN, CONFORD and FREUND.
GOLDMANN, S.J.A.D.
Defendant was sentenced to State Prison after being convicted of entering, petit larceny, and possession of burglar tools. On August 7, 1959 Martin L. Duyk was assigned by the Essex County Court to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel obtained an order providing defendant with a free transcript and proceeded to investigate the matter by visiting defendant at the State Prison in Trenton and conferring with members of his family as well as the attorney who had represented him at the trial.
Notice of appeal was filed August 31, 1959. Counsel then applied for and obtained an order permitting defendant to appeal as an indigent. Thereafter he petitioned this court for a 30-day extension of time to perfect the appeal, alleging that Mrs. Rinaldi had informed him that defendant was in possession of newly discovered evidence and wanted to see him.
Counsel at once conferred with defendant, who was then at Rahway Prison Farm. Defendant told him he would shortly come into possession of certain documents which would prove that a witness at the trial, one Authony Ligori committed perjury; further, that counsel would within the week receive the names and addresses of six witnesses who were out of the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the trial and whose testimony was material and would probably change the result if a new trial were granted. On October 23, 1959 we allowed a 30-day extension.
On October 30 defendant petitioned this court for a change of counsel, alleging that Duyk did not have his interests at heart and could not competently represent him. Not a single fact was cited in support. Here, in a different setting, we have another instance of a charge which, during the recent past and with strange frequency, has been leveled against demonstrably able trial counsel in prisoner applications for leave to appeal In forma pauperis. A charge so serious should be reserved for the rare occasion where it can be established as true beyond all question. Reckless resort to the charge has resulted in debasing it to the level of a rubber-stamp, unimpressive ground of appeal or, as here, reason for change of counsel. The result has often been libel visited upon capable attorneys who willingly and at some sacrifice have undertaken the task of representing impecunious defendants.
Defendant in his petition also requested this court to set nominal bail pending the appeal, so that he might locate and subpoena witnesses whom assigned counsel had been unable to locate. We denied the application on November 6.
In the meantime, defendant wrote Duyk that he had requested the court to relieve him as counsel, again asserting that Duyk did not have his interests at heart and stating that if counsel wished to continue in the case, 'we have to get together and enter the briefs on my grounds.' He threatened to file formal charges against him with the Bar Association. He also informed Duyk that the trial attorney had the names of the witnesses in his files, as well as subpoenas he had made out for them. By way of postscript he added, 'It is my personal impression that you are conspiring against me & not with me.'
Thereafter Duyk petitioned this court to be relieved, attaching a copy of defendant's letter. The petition recites that counsel tried to obtain the names and addresses of the alleged six witnesses, as well as the originals of the documents which defendant said he would provide; that following receipt of the letter just mentioned he got in touch with the trial attorney and was informed that subpoenas for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kordower
...McCombs, 171 N.J.Super. 161, 165, 408 A.2d 434 (App.Div.1978), aff'd 81 N.J. 373, 408 A.2d 425 (1979), quoting State v. Rinaldi, 58 N.J.Super. 209, 214, 156 A.2d 28 (App.Div.1959), cert. den. 366 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 1089, 6 L.Ed.2d 238 (1961). As stated in Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 15......
-
State v. Smith
...At the outset we refer to defendant's efforts to dismiss assigned counsel. The phenomenon is not new. See State v. Rinaldi, 58 N.J.Super. 209, 214, 156 A.2d 28 (App.Div.1959), cert. denied 366 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 1089, 6 L.Ed.2d 238 (1961). Too often defendants who petition for counsel on th......
-
State v. Manning
...defendant is not entitled to State funding for the leading experts in a field, only for competent experts. Cf. State v. Rinaldi, 58 N.J.Super. 209, 214, 156 A.2d 28 (App.Div.1959), cert. den. 366 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 1089, 6 L.Ed.2d 238 (1961), cert. den. 371 U.S. 847, 83 S.Ct. 82, 9 L.Ed.2d ......
-
State v. Coon
...up to his notions of ability or competency. Assigned counsel is not required to dance to the prisoner's tune. State v. Rinaldi, 58 N.J.Super. 209, 214, 156 A.2d 28 (App.Div.1959). Simply put, a defendant does not have the right to accept or reject assigned counsel, as whim or scheme dictate......