STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. R.D.(11-03-0127, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1812-14T4

Background

Defendant R.D. pleaded guilty (conditionally) to first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact for acts against his daughter when she was 13–14 years old.
On the eve of trial defendant sought an adjournment to retain an expert and obtain an independent physical examination of the victim to contest whether touching constituted penetration; the trial judge denied the request as untimely and on the merits.
The court began a Miranda hearing on the admissibility of defendant’s statements but interrupted it when defendant entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the adjournment denial; the plea resulted in an aggregate ten-year term subject to the No Early Release Act and Megan’s Law.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the adjournment denial was an abuse of discretion, (2) the Miranda hearing should have been completed before the plea, (3) trial counsel was ineffective in connection with those decisions, and (4) the sentence was excessive.
The Appellate Division affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the compelled physical exam request, defendant waived the Miranda challenge by pleading guilty without preserving it, ineffective-assistance claims were not suitable for direct review, and the sentence was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of adjournment to obtain independent physical exam was an abuse of discretion	State: court properly exercised discretion given untimeliness, lack of good cause, victim's interests, and limited probative value	R.D.: child’s physical development could be critical to penetration question; expert exam could show non-penetration	Denial affirmed — defendant failed to meet heavy burden for compelled intimate exam; untimely and speculative; potential trauma outweighed slight probative value
Whether Miranda hearing had to be completed before plea	State: plea waived challenge because defendant did not preserve Miranda claim in plea	R.D.: court should have finished Miranda hearing before accepting plea	Held: Defendant waived Miranda challenge by pleading guilty without preservation; court not obliged to complete hearing post-plea
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for permitting plea without completing Miranda hearing/preserving issue	State: inappropriate for direct review because claims rest outside trial record	R.D.: counsel’s choices deprived him of ability to litigate Miranda issue	Held: Ineffective-assistance claims dismissed from direct appeal; factual development required in post-conviction proceedings
Whether sentence was excessive	State: sentence follows plea and sentencing standards; factors balanced appropriately	R.D.: sentence unfair/excessive	Held: Sentence affirmed — court adequately articulated findings and properly applied sentencing rules

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (discretionary review of adjournment denials) (establishes standard for adjournment abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88 (historic articulation that adjournment motions lie in court's discretion)
State v. Kane, 449 N.J. Super. 119 (App. Div.) (standard for compelling physical examination of a victim)
State ex rel. A.B., 219 N.J. 542 (victim's privacy and protection from intrusive examinations; heavy burden on defendant)
State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249 (limits on compelled examinations and victim protection principles)
State v. Cabrera, 387 N.J. Super. 81 (penetration need only be slight; depth not relevant)
Cmty. Hosp. Grp., Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden, 381 N.J. Super. 119 (appellate obligation to include relevant portions of the record)
State v. Marolda, 394 N.J. Super. 430 (plea waives unpreserved pre-plea motions/challenges)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (ineffective-assistance claims often require record development; not suited for direct appeal)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (same — counsel ineffectiveness typically litigated post-conviction)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (sentencing review standards; court must articulate reasons)
State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165 (sentencing principles and review)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (standards for sentencing review)