State v. Tsilimidos
Decision Date | 14 November 2003 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nicolaos TSILIMIDOS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Robert W. Gluck argued the cause for appellant (Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris, Discenza & Steinberg, attorneys; Mr. Gluck, of counsel and on the brief; Sherri Orenberg-Ruggieri, on the brief).
Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Rosenbach, of counsel and on the brief).
Mark R. Sander argued the cause for K.B.1
Before Judges SKILLMAN, COBURN and WELLS. The opinion of the court was delivered by WELLS, J.A.D
The defendant, Nicholas Tsilimidos, appeals from the denial of his post-conviction motion to direct that his plea of guilt to harassment in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 not be evidential in civil proceedings.
The factual circumstances, undisputed, are simply described. In May 2002, defendant was charged with an indictable offense, criminal sexual contact in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b and two disorderly persons offenses, harassment in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4b and offering alcohol to a minor in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-17a. The victim of these alleged offenses, K.B., was a teenage girl in the employ of the defendant.
In July 2002, the defendant initially pled not guilty, but then entered a retraxit plea of guilty to the harassment charge in accordance with a plea agreement. The other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to pay a $100 fine immediately, pay statutory costs and penalties, and ordered to submit to a psychological examination. The judge reserved the right to impose non-custodial probation, conditioned on the defendant's attendance at therapy in the event the psychological report recommended that course.
The following month, K.B. and her parents instituted a civil action against the defendant for sexual harassment in violation of the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49.
The sentencing proceedings resumed on September 26, 2002. Defendant was resentenced to a one-year period of probation and to pay restitution of $600, in addition to previously awarded fines and penalties. Defendant was ordered to have no contact with K.B. Defense counsel then moved defendant's application to have the judgment include a provision that it not be evidential in the pending civil case. The judge denied the motion, rejecting the defendant's argument that because he pled to a disorderly offense the Municipal Court rule should apply. The judge considered himself bound by the Superior Court rule and found the defendant had offered no reason to grant a civil reservation.
Defendant asserts on appeal that R. 7:6-2(a)(1) is applicable to the case of a petty disorderly offense and should have been applied and his application granted upon request even though the matter was heard in Superior Court. A second point urges that the dictates of "even handed" justice require a uniform standard to prevent forum shopping.
We disagree and affirm. We hold the judge was correct in declining to apply the Municipal Court rule. There is no question, as the parties recognize, that there is a significant distinction in the standard applicable to permitting a civil reservation under the respective Superior Court and Municipal Court Rules. R. 3:9-2 provides: "For good cause shown the court may, in accepting a plea of guilty, order that such plea not be evidential in any civil proceeding." In contrast, R. 7:6-2(a)(1) states: "Upon the request of the defendant, the court may, at the time of the acceptance of a guilty plea, order that the plea shall not be evidential in any civil proceeding."
Here, the judge clearly was not sitting as a municipal judge. This case began in Superior Court with an indictable offense and two non-indictable offenses. Both are cognizable in Superior Court. R. 3:1-1 provides in relevant part:
The rules in Part III govern the practice and procedure in all indictable and non-indictable proceedings in the Superior Court Law Division and, insofar as they are applicable, the practice and procedure on indictable offenses in all other courts, including the municipal courts ....
On the other hand, R. 7-1 provides:
Pleas in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings are evidential in a civil case as a statement by a party under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lavrik
...decision, however, is not without caveats. We now hold, as we noted nearly twenty years ago in State v. Tsilimidos, 364 N.J. Super. 454, 456 n.1, 837 A.2d 373 (App. Div. 2003), the victim should have moved to intervene for leave to appeal and file a brief before this court. Similar to the r......
-
In re Application for Retail Firearms Dealer License Renewal
...Id. at 8-9 (first quoting State v. Haulaway, Inc., 257 N.J. Super. 506, 508 (App. Div. 1992); then quoting State v. Tsilimidos, 364 N.J. Super. 454, 459 (App. Div. 2003)). In this case, Cayuse contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce the JOC since a civil r......
- State v. Golotta
-
State v. McIntyre-Caulfield, DOCKET NO. A–1277–17T1
...reservation where the civil consequences of a plea may wreak devastating financial havoc on a defendant." State v. Tsilimidos, 364 N.J. Super. 454, 459, 837 A.2d 373 (App. Div. 2003). Defendant showed good cause under both examples.The judge's ruling presented a Hobson's choice for defendan......