Robbery Trial 2 Years After Arrest and Right To Speedy Trial

Antonio Jones was convicted of first-degree robbery (N.J.SA. 2C:15-1) and fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. Jones was sentenced to an extended term including life without parole with the sentence for obstruction to be served concurrently. Jones appealed based on the denial of his motion to dismiss based on failure of the State to uphold his right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the N.J. Constitution. Jones was arrested in February 2012. In spite of defendant’s repeated requests for the State to provide discovery, the State failed to comply and the matter was delayed. In September 2012, Jones filed a speedy trial motion. In December 2012, the trial judge ordered the State to comply with discovery demands. In February 2013, the state still had not complied and Jones again filed a speedy trial motion. The Superior Court records indicated that the motion was denied in August of 2013 but without reasons set forth. The Superior Court judge merely ordered that no trial would occur until discovery was completed and a trial date was set for February 2014, 2 years after Jones was arrested. As 18 months had already elapsed when the Defendant renewed his speedy trial motion, the N.J. Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Superior Court for a review of Jones’ speedy trial motion under the 4 factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2181, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972). Under Barker, the balancing test, applied in State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013) includes: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason therefor; (3) the defendant must assert his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay. In Cahill, the N.J. Supreme Court considered 1 year as the amount of time triggering further inquiry under the factors set forth in Barker. First-degree robbery is a very serious charge that carries substantial penalties including up to 20 years in prison. The State has to remain within the confines of the law in collecting evidence, your arrest, and presenting evidence and testimony against you. If you have been charged with robbery it is critical you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to fight for your rights each step of the way. For more information regarding robbery, theft, weapons, distribution and other serious crimes in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Charges Follow Without Miranda After Accident

John Martens was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) after attempting to walk away from his burning vehicle. A passerby reported a vehicle fire and that the vehicle’s driver was attempting to leave the scene. The vehicle had damage to the driver’s side, flat tires and the airbags had been deployed. Investigating officers found only one person in the area who was swaying as he was walking away from the vehicle. The individual admitted he was the vehicle’s owner and that the vehicle struck the median. While speaking with Martens, officers noted his speech was slurred and eye movements were slow. They administered field sobriety tests (FSTs) and arrested Martens. Later, an Alcotest was administered and Marten’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was determined to be .17%. Martens was charged with DUI, reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96); failure to maintain lanes (39:4-88); and abandoning a vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:4-56.6). Among other motions, Martens sought to suppress statements to the officers prior to his arrest based on the fact that he was not read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The suppression motion was denied and Martens entered a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, reserving his right to challenge the denial of the suppression motion on appeal. Martens was sentenced as a 3rd time offender and received a 180 day jail sentence, 10 year suspension of his driving privileges, 1 year ignition interlock requirement, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center as well as fines and surcharges. In State v. John Martens, the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, denied Martens’ suppression motions, found him guilty based upon his plea in the municipal court and imposed the same sentence as the municipal court. Martens appealed to the N.J. Appellate Division. Miranda warnings must be administered when a custodial interrogation occurs wherein the suspect has been deprived of freedom in a significant way. State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 614 (1999). Police need not administer Miranda warnings during routine traffic stops. Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005). Martens was asked a limited number of questions and was not subject to the equivalent of an arrest prior to being Mirandized by the officers following the FSTs. The decision of the N.J. Superior Court was affirmed. If you are charged with DUI, you are facing substantial penalties beginning with up to 1 year loss of driving privileges for a first offense up to a maximum of a 10 year loss of driving privileges and 180 days in jail for a third offense. In addition, you face the possibility of losing your job, certain professional licenses and the social stigma that comes with DUI. You need the assistance of an experience defense attorney and should not face these charges without one. For more information about driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, driving while suspended or other serious motor vehicle offenses in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This Blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.