State v. James J. Revie (072600)
104 A.3d 221
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Defendant (Revie) had DWI convictions in 1981, 1982 (uncounseled guilty plea), 1994, and 2010/2011 (the conviction at issue).
- Because the 1994 conviction occurred >10 years after his 1982 conviction, he previously received a "step-down" and was sentenced as a second offender in 1994.
- In 2011 the 1982 conviction was set aside on post-conviction relief (Laurick grounds) for purposes of enhancing incarceration, i.e., an uncounseled plea cannot increase loss of liberty.
- After the 2010 offense (fourth DWI), defendant sought a second application of the statutory "step-down" (treating the current offense as a second offense because >10 years elapsed since the 1994 conviction).
- Municipal court, Law Division, and Appellate Division denied a second "step-down," relying on State v. Burroughs; defendant appealed to the NJ Supreme Court on sentence only.
- The Supreme Court held the statute allows multiple "step-downs" if each intervening gap between the most recent prior and current offense exceeds ten years, but Laurick/Hrycak limit use of an uncounseled prior only for administrative penalties, not incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Revie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) can be applied more than once to benefit a repeat offender | Legislature did not intend perpetual pardon; Burroughs supports single application | Statute's plain language permits multiple "step-downs" when each prior/current gap >10 years | Yes: statute permits multiple "step-downs" if each most-recent-to-current gap >10 years |
| Effect of uncounseled 1982 conviction on sentencing (incarceration) | State: count priors generally to enhance punishment | Revie: Laurick prevents uncounseled plea from increasing loss of liberty; combined with step-down he should be sentenced as a second offender for incarceration | Laurick bars using the uncounseled 1982 conviction to enhance incarceration; but it still counts for administrative penalties (Hrycak) |
| How to reconcile step-down with Laurick/Hrycak | Treat priors uniformly for all penalties | Distinguish incarceration (Laurick) from administrative penalties (Hrycak) | Apply step-down for incarceration based only on counseled priors; uncounseled priors count for administrative sanctions |
| Proper sentence for Revie after holdings | Court below: treat as third/subsequent for incarceration and admin penalties | Revie: incarceration as second offender; admin penalties as third | Court: incarcerative term = second-offender range; administrative penalties = third-or-subsequent range |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990) (uncounseled guilty plea cannot be used to enhance incarceration)
- State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351 (2005) (uncounseled prior may be used to impose administrative DWI penalties)
- State v. Burroughs, 349 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 2002) (interpreting step-down contextually; defendant there was not entitled to further leniency)
- State v. Ciancaglini, 204 N.J. 597 (2011) (not deciding whether step-down can be used twice; recognized issue arises only with two separate >10-year gaps)
- State v. Conroy, 397 N.J. Super. 324 (App. Div. 2007) (applied Laurick and step-down: uncounseled prior barred from increasing incarceration but counted for administrative penalties)
- State v. Hamm, 121 N.J. 109 (1990) (driver's license revocation is an administrative penalty under the DWI statute)