State of New Jersey v. Cecilio Davila
129 A.3d 1099
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Davila was charged with the first-degree Leader count and eight related drug offenses plus a separate indictment for a weapon-related offense.
- Davila entered a negotiated guilty plea reserving the right to appeal pre-trial motions regarding a dismissed count as part of the plea agreement.
- Plea terms provided for dismissal of the Leader count and other charges at sentencing, along with dismissal of charges against his sister and girlfriend.
- At sentencing, Davila pled guilty to counts four, seven, and nine of the first indictment and to the separate indictment; he received a 15-year custodial sentence with parole ineligibility.
- The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court’s denial of the Leader-count motion to dismiss was reversible error, with mootness arising from the Leader count’s dismissal under the plea agreement.
- The majority held the appeal regarding the Leader-count pre-trial motion moot but nonetheless reviewed the merits and affirmed the denial based on sufficient grand-jury evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal of a pre-trial motion relating to a dismissed count moot? | State argues mootness; no practical effect from appeal. | Davila argues preserved right should be heard on the merits for benefit of plea. | Moot, but merits reviewed to preserve plea benefits. |
| Was there sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to sustain the Leader count? | State satisfied prima facie elements of leadership in narcotics network. | Davila contends evidence did not show supervisory role. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported Leader count. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knight, 183 N.J. 449 (2005) (waiver exceptions for pretrial issues; conditional pleas)
- State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (2007) (three exceptions to waiver under Rule 3:9-3(f))
- State v. Robinson, 224 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 1988) (waiver scope of guilty pleas and appellate review)
- State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (1996) (grand jury sufficiency; standard of review)
- State v. Eckel, 429 N.J. Super. 580 (App. Div. 2012) (evidence standard to sustain grand jury indictment)
- Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2006) (mootness doctrine and practical effect)