State v. Roger Paul Frye (070975)
217 N.J. 566
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Frye pled guilty to refusal to submit to a breathalyzer in 2008; DWI and reckless driving were dismissed.
- Municipal court found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of refusal and sentenced Frye as a third-time offender under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, suspending his license for ten years.
- Judges relied on Frye’s two prior DWI convictions (2001, 2004) to enhance the refusal sentence.
- Ciancaglini (2011) held that a prior refusal conviction cannot enhance a subsequent DWI sentence; its logic framed the issue in inverse form to Bergwall.
- Bergwall (1981) held that a prior DWI conviction may enhance a subsequent refusal sentence; this remained a point of contention after Ciancaglini.
- Legislative history shows amendments and study-commission prompts aimed at removing incentives to refuse breath tests, culminating in “this section” wording changes but not overriding Bergwall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior DWI convictions may enhance a subsequent refusal sentence | Frye argues Bergwall is controlling and prior DWI cannot enhance refusal. | State argues Bergwall allows enhancement under the current statute. | Prior DWI convictions may enhance a subsequent refusal sentence. |
| Whether Ciancaglini overrides Bergwall | Ciancaglini forbids using a prior refusal to enhance DWI, implying Bergwall should be overturned here. | State contends Ciancaglini is inapposite and Bergwall remains controlling for this inverse issue. | Ciancaglini does not overturn Bergwall; Bergwall controls. |
| Whether the refusal statute’s plain language supports enhancement by prior DWI | Language ties enhancement to prior offenses under this section, which can include DWI precedents. | Statutory language focuses on ‘this section’ and prior refusals aren’t cross-referenced to DWI. | Statutory language supports enhancement based on prior offenses, including DWI, under this section. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bergwall, 85 N.J. 382 (1981) (prior DWI may enhance a subsequent refusal sentence under the refusal statute)
- Ciancaglini v. State, 204 N.J. 597 (2011) (prior refusal cannot enhance a subsequent DWI sentence; distinguishes DWI vs. refusal statutes)
- State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010) (statutory interpretation guiding courts to ascertain legislative intent from plain language)
- State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (1987) (public policy against drunk driving supports enforcement purposes)
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (Slater factors in procedural rulings related to plea withdrawals)
- State v. Wilhalme, 206 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 1985) (legislative history considerations and Bergwall interpretation noted)