State v. Rupani
| Decision Date | 12 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-2881-19 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VANDANA RUPANI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Currier and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Municipal Appeal No. 7-19.
The Hernandez Law Firm, PC, attorneys for appellant (Thomas Cannavo, of counsel and on the brief).
Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Russell J. Curley, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant Vandana Rupani appeals from the Law Division's February 18, 2020 order entered after a de novo trial on the record. The Law Division found defendant guilty of the following charges: driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50; refusal to submit to chemical test (refusal), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2; reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96; leaving the scene of an accident; N.J.S.A. 39:4-129(b), failure to report an accident, N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 and consumption of an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle, N.J.S.A. 39:4-51a. We affirm.
On September 26, 2018, at approximately 8:45 p.m., police were dispatched to a residence following a report of a motor vehicle accident. On arrival, police observed tire marks on the front lawn, a tree had been run over, and the driveway was scraped as if a vehicle had driven up the driveway and turned around. At a neighboring home, police found the front end of a bumper as well as a license plate and bracket.
When the police entered the license plate number in the database, they discovered it was registered to a vehicle under the last name Rupani with an address located approximately ten minutes away. Upon arriving at the address, the police saw a car parked in the driveway with its engine running. The carhad a flat tire and the front end was damaged and missing its front license plate. As the officers approached the vehicle, they observed a female occupant, later identified as defendant, sitting in the driver's seat with a "flushed face" and "vomit all over herself." Upon closer inspection, the officers saw "small wine bottle containers" opened and empty on the passenger side floorboard as well as "vomit all over the interior compartment of the vehicle." They also detected "an odor of alcohol emanating from within the vehicle."
The officers identified themselves and asked defendant to turn off the ignition and exit the car. Defendant did not respond and instead "shuffl[ed] her body around" inside the car. She also did not respond to the officers' request to produce identification. Therefore, the officers reached in through the car's open back window, unlocked the car, and removed the keys from the ignition.
When defendant attempted to exit the car, she could not maintain her balance and she fell onto the lawn. The officers asked defendant if she had been drinking; she replied that she had consumed three glasses of wine. Defendant continued to struggle to maintain her balance and "couldn't stand up on her own." The officers described her speech as "incredibly slurred" andher eyes were "glassy, glossy, bloodshot, [and] droopy." Defendant's clothes were "disheveled" and "covered in vomit."
Defendant was unable to perform any of the requested standardized field sobriety tests. As a result, and in addition to the officers' observations of defendant, the police concluded she had been driving while intoxicated. The officers also stated defendant was uncooperative in their attempts to arrest her and apply handcuffs. While at headquarters, defendant refused to submit to an Alcotest. Multiple charges were lodged against her, including, and related to the DWI offense.
Defendant first appeared in municipal court on October 31, 2018. When the judge asked defendant whether she was aware of all the charges against her, she responded affirmatively. As defendant appeared pro se, the court also inquired whether she intended to acquire an attorney. When defendant said "yes", the court adjourned the matter for two weeks. The judge told defendant that if she was unable to afford an attorney, he would discuss a public defender application with her at the next court appearance. The judge then discussed at length the penalties defendant was facing as a third DWI offender, includinglosing her driving privileges for ten years. The judge concluded by telling defendant her goal for the next couple of weeks was to procure an attorney.
On November 13, 2018, defendant appeared pro se before a different municipal court judge. She stated she was applying for a public defender because she had been unemployed since June or July of 2018. The judge approved defendant's public defender application and informed her she would be represented at her next court proceeding.
On December 13, 2018, defendant appeared before a third municipal court judge. She was represented by public defender Anthony Fazioli. When counsel indicated he had not yet received discovery, the judge adjourned the case for two weeks.
On January 3, 2019, defendant appeared in court, again represented by Mr. Fazioli. She was granted another two-week adjournment when defense counsel indicated he had only received "paper discovery" and not the motor vehicle recording or police headquarters video.
Three weeks later, when defendant arrived in court, she was represented by a different public defender. Because the prosecutor had still not served the requested discovery and because defendant said she felt "more comfortable dealing with [Mr. Fazioli]," her case was adjourned again.
During defendant's court appearance on February 19, 2019, she was represented by Mr. Fazioli who advised the court that they were ready for trial. When the judge inquired whether defendant was represented by private counsel or the public defender's office, Mr. Fazioli responded it was "a public defender matter." The judge then indicated he would tell the prosecutor to subpoena "all the officers" and trial would take place in March.
On March 25, 2019, defendant appeared before the original municipal court judge. She was represented by a fourth public defender. The judge stated he had discussed the matter with the prosecutor and public defender, and he wanted to explain to defendant the penalties she was facing. The judge told defendant she would receive a mandatory ten-year license suspension if convicted as a third DWI offender, as well as another mandatory ten-year license suspension for the refusal charge that was required to run consecutively with the DWI sentence. The judge further advised defendant she had the option to enter into a plea deal, but he was "not forcing [her] to enter a plea," and simply "want[ed] her to understand the consequences" if she did not. Defendant then consulted with counsel for approximately thirty minutes.
When defendant returned, she told the judge that she needed time to "get an actual lawyer." She said she had never looked for a lawyer because she waslooking for a job and had no money. After further inquiry about her financial situation, she told the court she would "figure something out."
Defendant then informed the court that Mr. Fazioli had previously told her she was only facing charges for property damage and she was "shocked" to learn this was not the case. Defendant maintained she had been told five or six times that she was only facing a "property damage case." Defendant said she did not want a trial but needed "time to think, to get an actual lawyer."
The judge then asked the prosecutor whether he had offered defendant a plea. The prosecutor stated he offered to dismiss all of the other charges if defendant pled guilty to DWI. The public defender advised he had offered the plea deal to defendant and recommended she accept it. Defendant rejected the offer.
Defendant continued to interrupt the judge, professing her innocence of DWI and stating she needed time to think and she would borrow money to retain counsel. The court responded that defendant's case had been adjourned for more than five months. He advised defendant she had never requested private counsel despite numerous opportunities to do so, and she was aware for many weeks that this date was her trial date.
The trial then began with the State producing its witnesses. Defendant did not present any witnesses on her behalf. At the end of the evening, the judge set a date for closing arguments and to make his ruling.
On April 1, 2019, the parties reconvened, and counsel gave their closing arguments. Thereafter, the judge issued an oral decision. He found the officers' testimony was credible and consistent. After recounting the facts, the judge found defendant guilty of DWI, refusal, reckless driving, consuming an alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, and failure to report an accident. The judge found defendant not guilty of DWI in a school zone and resisting arrest.
The court sentenced defendant as a third offender on the DWI conviction and imposed ten years' license revocation, three years of an ignition interlock device and 180 days in jail with the option to apply for ninety days at an impatient facility in lieu of jail time, in addition to statutory fines. Defendant was also sentenced as a third offender on the refusal charge and the court imposed a mandatory ten-year license revocation, to run consecutively with the revocation imposed for the DWI charge, as well as three years of ignition interlock and associated fines and assessments.
When defendant again protested that she was not permitted to get a lawyer, the judge replied that she was represented by "a very...
To continue reading
Request your trial