State v. Vasquez
432 N.J. Super. 354
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Defendant faced two indictments with potential 20+ years and NERA parole ineligibility.
- On July 26, 2010, he pled guilty to various counts including first-degree aggravated sexual assault and multiple second-degree offenses.
- State proposed an aggregate twenty-year sentence with 85% NERA and numerous conditions including treatment and supervision.
- Sentencing occurred February 18, 2011; defendant sought adjournment to file a motion to withdraw guilty pleas; family was seeking new counsel.
- Defense counsel expressed a perceived conflict, requesting assignment of new counsel and noting lack of cooperation to review the presentence report.
- Court denied the adjournment, proceeded to sentencing, and did not address the counsel-conflict on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence must be vacated/remanded for proper counsel proceedings. | State asserts no manifest wrong; denial of adjournment was proper. | Vasquez contends the court failed to address counsel's conflict and applicant's right to counsel. | Sentence vacated and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether the court erred by failing to address defense counsel's conflict and conduct meaningful proceedings. | State contends issues were properly resolved; no need for new counsel. | Vasquez argues conflict required adjournment or standby/appellate remedy. | Remand required; failure to address conflict was reversible error. |
| Whether defendant should be allowed to withdraw pleas before sentencing under Hayes standard. | State would proceed with sentencing under plea terms. | Vasquez sought plea-withdrawal; rule governs presentence motions with lesser burden per Hayes. | Remand for motion to withdraw pleas consistent with Hayes. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (N.J. 2011) (holds denial of adjournment requires manifest wrong to disturb)
- State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499 (N.J. 1992) (on-record inquiry needed to ensure knowing waiver of right to counsel)
- State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22 (N.J. 1991) (waiver of right to counsel requires on-record inquiry)
- State v. Wiggins, 158 N.J. Super. 27 (App.Div.1978) (standby counsel possible when conflict arises and rights implicated)
- State v. Slattery, 239 N.J. Super. 534 (App.Div.1990) (standby counsel with compensation considerations in defense of accused)
- State v. Doro, 103 N.J.L. 88 (E.& A.1926) (early articulation of adjournment and counsel considerations)