Oral Argument Is Favored in Post-Conviction Relief Petitions

Isaiah Kinney was charged with first-degree conspiracy to commit murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3); second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)); first-degree attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3); fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)); and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and convicted of second-degree aggravated assault and second-degree conspiracy to commit aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)) after a trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County. Kinney was sentenced to a discretionary extended 20 year period of incarceration with an 85% parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (NERA) (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Kinney and Jones severely beat Floyd Simmons at a residence on Prospect Street in East Orange. After leaving the residence, Jones committed a minor driving infraction and crashed while fleeing an East Orange Police officer who noticed that, although Jones appeared not to be injured from the crash, her pants were covered in blood. Prior to Jones being chased by the officer, Kinney had exited the vehicle at a residence on Washington Terrace. Based on statements made by Jones to police, officers proceeded to the Washington Terrace residence to arrest Kinney. While at the residence without a warrant, officers discovered bloodstained clothing belonging to Kinney. At the trial level, Kinney filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the officers’ illegal search and seizure but the suppression motion was denied. In State v. Isaiah Kinney, the Defendant appealed unsuccessfully then sought post-conviction relief (PCR) based on ineffective assistance of assistance of counsel. The record on the Appellate level was noticeably devoid of any reference to the illegal search and seizure. The NJ Appellate Division found that oral argument in a post-conviction relief petition wherein the defendant exercises a last opportunity to raise reliability issues is deserving of oral argument although the determination of whether oral argument will be heard rests within the discretion of the PCR court. State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382, 386 (App. Div. 2001). In State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269, 282 (2012), the N.J. Supreme Court reinforced the factors set forth in Mayron and included that PCR judges should provide a statement of reasons for denying oral argument. The Appellate Division hearing the PCR matter determined that oral argument could have resolved uncertainty with regard to the absence of pursuit of the suppression motion but the PCR judge incorrectly held that, under State v. Moore, 273 N.J. Super. 118, 126 (App. Div. 1994), the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the suppression motion could only be raised in Kinney’s petition to the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division reasoned that, as there is no right to review by the Supreme Court, the PCR judge’s ruling on this matter deprived the defendant of his right to a determination on the issue. It was further determined that the lack of any record established by oral argument pertaining to the suppression motion rendered them unable to give adequate review to the PCR petition and the Appellate Division remanded the matter with direction that the matters of the suppression motion and ineffective assistance of counsel be reviewed. If you are faced with aggravated assault charges, you are facing up to 10 years in prison with an 85% parole ineligibility period under NERA. Even simple assault charges can result in incarceration and should not be taken lightly by you as they will certainly not be taken lightly by the court. If you are charged with assault you should obtain experienced defense counsel immediately. For more information about assault, aggravated assault, conspiracy, murder, unlawful possession of a weapon or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Attempted Murder Suspect Entitled To Fair Trial

Geraldo Rivera was charged with the attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1)) of Sean and Michael Burns during a bar fight over Sean Burns' failure to tip the barmaid, Rivera's fiancée'. Sean Burns was left with four stab wounds to the torso and Michael Burns' was cut severely exposing his intestines. Rivera, who claimed self-defense, also suffered head wounds. Multiple witness accounts diverged considerably leaving the jury to decide which version was most plausible. At trial, the prosecutor utilized various methods, including PowerPoint to present the State's case. Rivera was ultimately convicted of second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)) on Sean Burns and fourth-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(3)) on Michael Burns. Rivera was sentenced to eight years in prison with a period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A.)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). On Appeal in State v. Rivera, Rivera challenged the conviction based upon the State's unfair trial tactics depriving him of the right to a fair trial. The NJ Appellate Division determined that the prosecutor's display of Rivera's picture on a slide with the word guilty on it and other overly suggestive acts including climbing into the jury box at one point while Rivera was seated at the prosecutor's table to operate a projector as if to indicate fear of the defendant deprived Rivera of a fair trial. If you are facing charges of murder you are looking at a sentence of 30 years to life and even for lesser included offenses the sentence can be the same as life in prison depending on your age at sentencing. When confronting such charges, it is imperative that you have experienced and trusted criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you have the best chance possible in fighting the case and protecting your rights. For more information about murder, aggravated manslaughter, assault or weapons charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Attempted Burglary Suspect Showup Identification Not Unduly Prejudicial

Joseph Volpe was indicted for attempted burglary and convicted of third-degree attempted burglary after a woman, Marwa Mohamad, witnessed him attempting to pry open her kitchen window screen while another individual distracted her by ringing the doorbell of the residence. When the homeowner saw Volpe, it was at close range as she moved a curtain aside to see him standing immediately before her. The description Mohamad offered the 9-1-1 operator was a "heavyset man, with light skin, possibly Hispanic, and black hair" who was wearing a black sweatshirt. Officers in the area hearing the broadcast description discovered Volpe hiding in a nearby wooded area wearing a black t-shirt and also located a black sweatshirt nearby. Officers brought Volpe to Mohamad's residence in the back of a marked police car and wearing handcuffs where she identified him from a distance of approximately 30 feet, through a window of her residence while he remained in the rear of the patrol car with the rear window lowered. In State v. Volpe, a Wade hearing was conducted with regard to Mohamad's identification of Volpe and the court did not find the identification to be unreasonably suggestive. (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed.2d 1149 (1967)). At trial, Mohamad gave testimony regarding the identification. Also, an officer transporting Volpe to the station from the identification offered testimony that Volpe was unemployed at the time of the alleged attempt. The State was not permitted to offer testimony about the defendant's residence in a halfway house at the time of the alleged attempt. The NJ Appellate Division considered defendant's claims regarding the propriety of the identification under the standard of Manson/Madison (Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed.2d 140 (1977), State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988)) wherein a two-prong test is to be employed to determine whether the identification was impermissibly suggestive and next whether there is a "substantial likelihood of misidentification." In State v. Herrera, 187 N.J. 493 (2006) the court held one-on-one showups to be unduly suggestive but, under State v. Wilkerson, 60 N.J. 452 (1972), the benefits of accuracy of the victim's memory more proximately to the event as well as allowing rapid police action were found to render such identifications permissible in some circumstances. The Manson court held reliability to be paramount in the determination of fairness and set forth five factors courts must assess as follows: "(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the time of the confrontation; and (5) the time between the crime and confrontation. Manson, supra, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S. Ct. at 2253, 53 L. Ed. 2d at 154). After a thorough analysis, the Appellate division affirmed the trial court's decision with regard to admissibility of the identification. The Appellate Division determined that the State's testimony regarding defendant's residence was simply offered to rebut testimony offered by the defendant regarding his residence. Although unemployment is typically inadmissible to prove motive (State v. Martini, 131 N.J. 176, 265-66 (1993), it may be admissible if specifically relevant to prove a fact in issue (State v. Rogers, 19 N.J. 218, 228-30 (1955)). Once a statement was made regarding Volpe's employment status, the court admonished the prosecution to refrain from further mention thereof but offered no curative instruction. Nonetheless, the Appellate Division held the statement to be harmless error and not unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. Finally, Volpe challenged the sentence of the court based on misapplication of sentencing factors. With the prosecution's request for an extended term, the range for sentencing would be three to ten years in this matter and the court agreed that the trial court misapplied the sentencing factors. Ultimately, although the conviction was affirmed, the matter was remanded for re-sentencing. Burglary charges are not often lightly sentenced as they involve the possibility of great physical harm when the intruder and the owner or dweller accidentally meet and both act in fear. If you are facing burglary charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about burglary, theft, robbery or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Conviction For Attempted Murder of Newark Police Officer Upheld On Appeal

Omar Bridges and two co-conspirators were charged, by an Essex County grand jury, with three counts of first-degree attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 2C:5-1); three counts of second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); second-degree possession of a weapon, a handgun, for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); second-degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(f)); third-degree receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7); second-degree eluding (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b)); and first-degree conspiracy to attempt to murder the occupants of a vehicle (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:11-3). Bridges was ultimately convicted of the attempted murder of Newark Police Officer Patinho, aggravated assault on Officer Patinho, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of an assault weapon, receiving stolen property and certain persons not to have weapons. For his participation in stealing a Jaguar, engaging in a shoot-out with occupants of another vehicle and the shooting of a police officer in the chase thereafter, Omar Bridges was sentenced to an aggregate 40-year prison term. Officer Pathino's testimony at trial was that he saw the shoot-out while on patrol and, upon turning on the squad car's lights, a Jaguar and Subaru fled in different directions with Pathino chasing the Jaguar. The chase through Newark lasted approximately two minutes at 90 to 100 miles per hour until the Jaguar went airborne crossing railroad tracks and sustained heavy damage. When the Jaguar came to rest, Officer Pathino exited the squad car and ordered the Jaguar's passengers to show their hands at which time the passenger shot Officer Pathino. Officer Gasavage exchanged fire and the vehicle's occupants fled on foot. On appeal in State v. Bridges, the Defendant claimed the trial court erred in denying his request for a Wade hearing with regard to Officer Pathino's photo identification of the Defendant. Although New Jersey took a more broad approach to pre-trial identification in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011), the Appellate Division determined that, under the circumstances of the case, United States v. Wade, 388, U.S. 218 (1967) did not serve to extend exclusionary principles of pre-trial identification procedures to in-court trial identifications in Defendant's case. The Defendant next raised the point that the sentencing court did not perform an appropriate analysis under State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) which requires the court to consider six specific criteria in sentencing. The NJ Appellate Division agreed with the Defendant and remanded the matter to the sentencing court for a full statement of its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required under State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413 (2001). If you are facing murder or other serious charges, you are facing a prison sentence which may last your entire life. You require an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and ensure that your are provided with the best possible defense. For more information about murder, weapons offenses, theft and other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Rap Lyrics Are Not Evidence Of Prior Crimes

Vonte Skinner was charged with attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(3), 2C:11-3a(1)); aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1)); and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(2)); unlawful possession of a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5); and possession of a weapon with an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a) and convicted of attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(3), 2C:11-3a(1)); aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1)); and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(2)). Skinner received an extended term of 30 years in prison and subject to certain parole ineligibility and supervision under the No Early Release Act (NERA) (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Skinner’s case arose as a result of the 2005 shooting of Lamont Peterson multiple times at close range with a handgun. Evidence at the scene, including a cell phone belonging to Skinner, led to his arrest. During Skinner’s arrest, while driving someone else’s vehicle, his rap lyrics were recovered on the back seat of the vehicle. Peterson survived and advised the police that Peterson and Skinner both sold drugs for Brandon C. Rothwell. After Skinner joined the team as the third man, Peterson’s profits fell and he began keeping some of Rothwell’s money. Peterson and Skinner both testified that on the night of the shooting they had been in cell phone contact multiple times to arrange a meeting during which Skinner was to buy cocaine from Peterson. When Peterson arrived to meet Skinner, Rothwell was with Skinner. Peterson remembered seeking Skinner and the gun but no other details. Skinner testified that just as Peterson was about to give him the drugs he heard a gunshot and he and Peterson both ran off in different directions. Both sides offered witnesses at trial giving conflicting testimony. The State’s main evidence was the Defendant’s rap lyrics. The jury was not advised that the lyrics were written over several years but did hear an extensive portion of the lyrics and was made aware that the lyrics were in the first person view of a narrator named “Threat” which is a name Skinner has tattooed on his arm. The lyrics described multiple violent acts by “Threat”. The matter was appealed by the Defendant based in part on the reading of Skinner’s rap lyrics to jurors by the prosecution for the purpose of establishing motive and intent on the part of Skinner. The Defendant claimed the lyrics were not properly authenticated and inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) due to substantial prejudice to defendant outweighing their probative value. The NJ Appellate Division cited State v. Crumb, 307 N.J. Super. 204 (App. Div. 1997) and State v. Koskovich, 168 NJ. 448 (2001) which held that creative writing is merely expressive and does not constitute bad acts themselves and therefore writing comes within N.J.R.E. 404(b). The NJ Appellate Division determined the reading of the lyrics to be prejudicial to Skinner and prohibited by N.J.R.E. 404(b). The NJ Supreme Court heard State v. Skinner and rendered its decision on August 4, 2014. The Justices found that there was no real connection between the lyrics and the murder other than to inaccurately portray his depiction of street violence to establish Defendant’s motive and intent and upheld the decision of the NJ Appellate Division that the lyrics were highly prejudicial and of minimal probative value. The NJ Supreme Court heard the State’s argument that, under Joynes v. State, 797 A.2d 673, 677 (Del. 2002) that the act of creating rap lyrics is not, in and of itself, a “bad act” and should be governed under that standard of relevance under N.J.R.E. 401. The Court disagreed reasoning that N.J.R.E.404(b) is to protect a defendant from evidence which proves little while doing substantial harm. The Court’s primary analysis of admissibility under N.J.R.E. 404(b) was analysis of the 4 prongs of State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 336 (1992): (1) that the other crime, wrong or bad act evidence pertains to some material issue in dispute in the instant matter; (2) the other crime is similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged ; (3) proof the evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing; and (4) any probative value is not outweighed by prejudice. If you are charged with a crime, there are strict limits to evidence which the State may use against you in making its case. To protect your freedom and rights if you are charged with any violent crime, you should consult with experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about murder, sexual assault, drugs, weapons charges or 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.