STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THOMAS BURNS(14-10-0878, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0923-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Thomas Burns, PA resident, charged in NJ with fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a second or subsequent suspension for a DWI (N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b)) and count of fourth-degree criminal trespass.
- PA DUI convictions used as predicate offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) despite being from another jurisdiction.
- June 5, 2014, stopped in Ocean City; NJ licenses suspended for a DWI; July 31, 2014, NJ suspension for a second DWI identified.
- Defendant moved to dismiss count two; Judge Porto denied; June 19, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty to count two with 180-day jail term and fines.
- Grand jury proceedings informed by Sergeant Mazzuca testimony; defendant argues grand jury insufficiency and lack of notice to predicates.
- Appellate review affirmed that PA DUI convictions qualify as NJ predicate offenses, grand jury evidence was sufficient, and due process notice issues were not violated, leading to affirmed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA DUI convictions qualify as predicate offenses under 2C:40-26(b) | Burns argues no; statute lacks foreign-DWI reference | Burns contends Pennsylvania DUIs are not predicates | PA DUIs qualify as predicate offenses under 2C:40-26(b) |
| Whether grand jury evidence was legally sufficient and correctly presented | State misinformed grand jury about the count | Evidence presented supported count two | Evidence supported prima facie case; not legally insufficient |
| Whether due process notice was violated by applying PA DUIs as predicates | Not explicitly stated; focus on notice | No constitutional right to notice of enhanced penalties for future convictions | Due process not violated; DLC reciprocity supports predicate use |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Luzhak, 445 N.J. Super. 241 (App. Div. 2016) (DLC reciprocity and predicate DWI interpretations relevant to foreign convictions)
- State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (1996) (indictment dismissal is discretionary; not to be granted lightly)
- State v. Schenkolewski, 301 N.J. Super. 115 (App. Div.) (indictment validity presumed if essential facts alleged)
- N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8 (1984) (indictment should not be dismissed unless palpably defective)
- State v. Zeikel, 423 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 2011) (repeat offender penalties and notice principles)
- State v. Nicolai, 287 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 1996) (no constitutional right to notice of enhanced penalties for future offenses)