- IN THE MATTER OF JAMES HARTNETT, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-0486-21 Appellate Feb. 13, 2023
- CAWTHER QASIM VS. FULTON BANK OF NEW JERSEY (C-000152-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0925-21 Appellate Feb. 13, 2023
- ROSEMARY SAMMARCO VS. THOMAS SAMMARCO (FM-02-1177-97, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1432-21 Appellate Feb. 13, 2023
- MAY FUNERAL HOME, INC., ET AL. VS. THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH SAITTA (L-2065-21, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1567-21 Appellate Feb. 13, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF STONE INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC. (DIVISION OF REVENUE AND ENTERPRISE SERVICES) A-2050-21 Appellate Feb. 13, 2023
- Tonnelle Center LLC v. Township of North Bergen 009702-2022 Tax Feb. 13, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANGEL R. HERNANDEZ-NUNEZ (17-06-0747, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1139-19 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GABRIEL A. TORRES (08-06-1951, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1787-20 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RABAH RABAH (12-04-0286, 13-06-0616, 14-03-0151, 14-09-0780, AND 14-03-0367, BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0351-21/A-0354-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- DCPP VS. A.S. AND G.T, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF G.T. (FG-20-0017-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0851-21/A-1228-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LOUIS M. COSCIA (14-07-1315, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0879-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GRADY A. BLUE (15-01-0129 AND 15-02-0222, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1833-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- B.A.R.S. VS. S.R.L. (FV-04-1298-22, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1856-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- B.C.P. VS. D.W.P (FV-14-0607-22 AND FV-14-0608-22, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2645-21/A-2778-21 Appellate Feb. 14, 2023
- State v. Richard Gomes; State v. Moataz M. Sheira (087192) (Morris & Middlesex County & Statewide) A-64/65-21 Supreme Feb. 14, 2023 Oral Argument A-64/65-21 A-64/65-21 Audio for A-64/65-21 Close Summary A-64/65-21 Persons who received pre-CREAMMA conditional discharges for specified marijuana offenses -- just like persons who had pre-CREAMMA convictions for those marijuana offenses -- are no longer categorically precluded from future admission into PTI. Instead, prosecutors and reviewing courts must consider the merits of their PTI applications, without regard to the existence or circumstances of the earlier marijuana-related conditional discharges. The holding harmonizes CREAMMA and its manifest legislative intent with the pre-existing general language of the PTI and expungement statutes, including the Legislature’s command in CREAMMA to apply its reforms to “any case” that arose before its enactment. Close
- KIMBERLIE CHARLES VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-3295-20 Appellate Feb. 15, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HAROLD M. CARTER (17-11-0798, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3415-20 Appellate Feb. 15, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN C. VANNESS (13-01-0050 AND 15-01-0057, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3775-20 Appellate Feb. 15, 2023 Summary A-3775-20 At issue in this post-conviction relief matter is whether defendant's "open" guilty plea during trial was premised on his attorney's "guarantee" that the judge would sentence him to a time-served sentence pursuant to an alleged agreement reached in chambers. Citing the transcript of the plea hearing to the contrary, the PCR judge – who was not the trial judge – denied defendant's petition. Thereafter, PCR counsel moved for reconsideration based on the certification of plea counsel, which supported defendant's assertions, but was acquired beyond the twenty-day time limitation prescribed by Rule 1:7-4(b) and Rule 4:49-2. The PCR judge denied the motion as untimely and did not reach the merits of defendant's motion. Because plea counsel's certification was belatedly provided to the PCR judge, this court affirms the denial of defendant's petition and his motion for reconsideration. However, the court concludes PCR counsel provided ineffective assistance following receipt of plea counsel's certification. Although PCR counsel's obligation to defendant was discharged upon filing an appeal with this court, PCR counsel filed an untimely reconsideration motion. PCR counsel had other available options that would have led to a timely-filed second PCR petition under Rule 3:22-12(a)(2)(B). PCR counsel could have sought authority from the Office of the Public Defender to file a second PCR petition on defendant's behalf, or he could have provided plea counsel's certification to defendant to file a pro se second petition. Because the court concludes PCR counsel's representation was deficient, defendant is entitled to a new PCR proceeding. Because defendant's assertions against plea counsel are now supported by the sworn statements of that same attorney, the court concludes defendant's claims cannot be resolved on the existing record. The court therefore affirms both orders under review. In light of PCR counsel's ineffectiveness, however, the court remands the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Close
- IN THE MATTER OF F.H. (0315XTR2020000002 and 0315XTR2020000003, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0243-21 Appellate Feb. 15, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD BRIGGS (16-10-0855, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0871-21 Appellate Feb. 15, 2023