Criminal Law Library Blog
These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reinstated sanctions against Spector Gadon Rosen & Vinci for failing to fully disclose its fees in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Capitol Report: Court Seeks Comments on Proposed Amendments to Landlord Tenant Rules and Forms
This week’s Capitol Report covers the Judiciary seeking comments on proposed amendments to the landlord tenant rules, and forms and proposed standards for presenting electronic media in courtrooms. Read the full report here.
Call for Nominations: New Jersey Legal Awards 2025
It’s time again for the New Jersey Law Journal’s New Jersey Legal Awards, where we set out to recognize attorneys, firms and legal departments based in the Garden State.
Rethink the Billable Hour in the AI Era with NJICLE
Artificial intelligence is making lawyers faster, yet many still struggle to increase revenue. Don’t miss this special NJICLE seminar on April 30 that will guide attorneys through proven pricing strategies that increase profitability without increasing workload. Register here.
As Corporate DEI Efforts Come Under Scrutiny, Women- and Minority-Owned Firms Focus on Expertise
We hope you enjoy this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Law.com subscribers can sign up for The AmLaw Litigation Daily newsletter here. Anyone else can click here to subscribe.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – April 24, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTS | EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Wilson v. The Hous. Auth. of the City of Newark, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff, a former employee of the Housing Authority of the City of Newark, appealed the dismissal of her second amended complaint against NHA and several individuals. Plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed in 2010, was resolved in 2013 through a settlement agreement, which included a $40,000 payment to her and $20,000 to her attorney. In 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging breach of the settlement agreement and fraud, claiming the NHA failed to pay payroll taxes and pension contributions, and improperly issued a Form 1099 instead of a Form W-2. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, finding the settlement agreement did not constitute a “wage settlement” and did not require pension contributions. The trial court also found the fraud claim lacked specificity. On appeal, the court noted that the settlement agreement was referenced in the complaint and formed the basis of plaintiff’s claims. The court ruled the trial court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim with prejudice, as the settlement agreement’s language suggested the $40,000 payment could be construed as wages given the fact that plaintiff was to be issued a W-2, warranting further examination. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim with prejudice, as plaintiff failed to specify which defendants made fraudulent statements and had acknowledged in the settlement agreement that she did not rely on any representations not set forth in the agreement.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Carroway, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant shot two victims in March 2016 because he believed they were involved in the recent murder of his friend. He conspired with others in May 2016 to carjack a vehicle. He pled guilty and was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement. Sentencing court noted he was 19 years old and had an extensive juvenile record. Defendant argued his counsel failed to argue mitigating factors, to challenge aggravating factors, oppose consecutive sentencing and file a direct appeal. PCR court found defendant failed to articulate which mitigating factors should have been argued, examined the mitigating factors and found none applied, and held defendant’s extensive juvenile record and the seriousness of his offenses justified the aggravating factors and consecutive sentences. Court agreed with the PCR court’s assessment that sentencing was appropriate, that defendant failed to identify any applicable mitigating factors and found defendant’s claims did not warrant an evidentiary hearing.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Sheppard, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. State alleged defendant masturbated in a videogame store in the presence of two minors. The incident was recorded on surveillance video. Defendant later pleaded guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child in exchange for a recommended four-year prison sentence. At the plea hearing, the court took recess to allow plaintiff to speak with his attorney. Defendant then stated he understood the deal and was satisfied with his representation. Defendant’s direct appeal was withdrawn and dismissed. His PCR petition asserted his plea was not voluntary, counsel failed to communicate effectively and go over discovery and to argue mitigating factors. PCR court found his claims were not supported by an affidavit and were contradicted by the record. Defendant argued his claims of ineffective assistance were supported by material facts outside the record and a evidentiary hearing was necessary. Court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the PCR court and found defendant’s assertions as to counsel’s failure were no more than bald assertions.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Rodriguez, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant, acting pro se, appealed the denial of his motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence. Defendant and co-defendants were indicted on multiple charges stemming from a gang-related kidnapping and murder. Defendant was found guilty on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, murder, felony murder and attempted murder. He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms under the No Early Release Act, but on appeal, his sentence was adjusted to an aggregate of 60 years with parole ineligibility. Defendant’s subsequent PCR and federal habeas corpus petitions were denied. In 2023, defendant moved to correct his sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not presenting mitigating factors during sentencing. Trial court found no evidence that mitigating factors two, four, eight, nine, eleven, thirteen and fourteen were overlooked. Defendant argued trial court erred by not applying Rule 3:29 and failed to apply overall fairness. Court found the sentences imposed were within the permissible sentencing ranges, were not illegal and were appropriately run consecutively. Court noted defendant failed to file a direct appeal following his resentencing under Rule 2:4-1(a) and could not now raise arguments concerning mitigating factors. Court also noted defendant’s motion to convert an illegal sentence was a second PCR petition and was time-barred. Moreover, defendant did not provide the transcripts of his 2004 resentencing hearing and without those transcripts, defendant’s arguments were pure speculation. Court also rejected defendant’s argument that trial judge failed to comply with Rules 1:7-4 and 3:29.
CRIMINAL LAW
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.T., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Offender appealed the judgment that continued his civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Offender’s history of violent sexual assaults included offenses against two children. He was adjudicated delinquent in 1977 for sodomy with a child and sexually assaulted and brutally beat the daughter of his romantic partner in 1990. He gave wildly conflicting accounts of that offense and pled guilty to first-degree sexual assault. While incarcerated he was accused by a mentally handicapped inmate of a forceful sexual assault. He also had two prison disciplinary infractions for engaging in sexual activity. He also had a significant non-sexual criminal history including convictions for robbery and burglary. He had been civilly committed since 2000, with multiple recommitments following periodic reviews. State presented expert testimony from a psychiatrist and a psychologist at his 2023 hearing. They diagnosed him with pedophilic disorder, antisocial personality disorder and multiple substance abuse disorder and opined he was highly likely to reoffend if released, based on his lack of progress in treatment and failure to internalize treatment concepts. Trial court found State had overwhelmingly proven offender’s likelihood to reoffend if not confined. Offender argued the experts’ opinions were net opinions and trial court imposed the burden of proof on him to prove he was not at high risk of reoffending Court found the record amply supported trial court’s decision and trial judge properly applied the SVPA standards. Record did not support offender’s contention that the experts’ opinions were net opinions. They explained the factual bases for their opinions and the correlation of those facts to offender’s clinical presentation and likelihood to reoffend.