State v. Hayes
16 A.3d 1028
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Hayes pled guilty to first‑degree robbery and third‑degree eluding under a negotiated plea; the State promised 13 years with NERA parole terms and concurrent sentence on eluding; sentencing occurred after nearly two months; Hayes sought to withdraw the pleas before sentencing but faced lack of counsel due to conflicts and scheduling; trial court denied adjournment and the withdrawal motion; Hayes was without counsel for the withdrawal motion; appellate courts affirmed denial prior to this certification; this Court remands for a properly counseled Slater hearing under Rule 3:9-3(e).
- Hayes was arrested on new charges before sentencing, and bail was revoked; the trial court admonished Hayes to remain arrest‑free, which he did not, affecting sentencing proceedings.
- At sentencing, Hayes sought to withdraw pleas; his retained counsel stated conflicts prevented representation for the withdrawal motion and sought a two‑week adjournment; the court denied the adjournment and proceeded to sentence under the plea agreement.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on Slater factors and the negotiated nature of the pleas; this Court granted certification to address the right to counsel and adjournment in the plea withdrawal context.
- The Court now remands the case for a full, counseled Slater hearing, to be governed by the pre‑sentencing “interests of justice” standard, and reinstate charges if withdrawal is denied after proper counsel is provided.
- Jurisdiction is not retained; outcome to be determined on remand under the specified standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a two‑week adjournment to obtain conflict‑free counsel violated Hayes’s right to counsel. | State: adjournment not merited; motion to withdraw not shown to have merit | Hayes: adjournment essential to obtain counsel to press withdrawal | Remanded for counseled Slater hearing; error in denying adjournment deemed reversible |
| Whether the withdrawal of guilty pleas should be analyzed under pre‑sentencing or post‑sentencing standards given lack of counsel. | State: standard appropriately applied given past rulings | Hayes: pre‑sentencing standard should apply due to lack of counsel | Remand to apply pre‑sentencing “interests of justice” burden on remand |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the withdrawal motion without counseled input and proceeding to sentence. | State: no abuse; motion lacked merit | Hayes: denial without counsel violated due process | Remand for a fulsome, counseled plea withdrawal hearing; if denied, limit appellate review to the hearing record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (four-factor test for withdrawal of guilty pleas; pre/post‑sentencing burdens differ)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (constitutional right to counsel in criminal prosecutions)
- State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1 (1980) (right to counsel essential to fair proceedings)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel in highly adverse trials)
- United States v. Burton, 584 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (factors for reasonable adjournment to retain counsel)