New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery is usually a second degree crime in New Jersey, punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison. However, Robbery can be a first degree (10-20 years in prison) if the defendant kills, attempts to kill, or seriously injures another in the course of the robbery.

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery is usually a second degree crime in New Jersey, punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison. However, Robbery can be a first degree (10-20 years in prison) if the defendant kills, attempts to kill, or seriously injures another in the course of the robbery.

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

In New Jersey, a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if he or she is found guilty of Harassment. Petty disorderly conduct convictions carry up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine. A person is guilty of Harassment if, with purpose to harass another, he:

a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.

A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.

d. (Deleted by amendment, P.L. 2001, c. 443).

e. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, in committing an offense under this section, he was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.

Public place defined; loitering to obtain or distribute CDS is a disorderly persons offense (misdemeanor) in New Jersey, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1000 fine.

Under the statute, "Public place" means any place to which the public has access, including but not limited to a public street, road, thoroughfare, sidewalk, bridge, alley, plaza, park, recreation or shopping area, public transportation facility, vehicle used for public transportation, parking lot, public library or any other public building, structure or area.

b. A person, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, commits a disorderly persons offense if (1) he wanders, remains or prowls in a public place with the purpose of unlawfully obtaining or distributing a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog; and (2) engages in conduct that, under the circumstances, manifests a purpose to obtain or distribute a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.

c. Conduct that may, where warranted under the circumstances, be deemed adequate to manifest a purpose to obtain or distribute a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog includes, but is not limited to, conduct such as the following:

(1) Repeatedly beckoning to or stopping pedestrians or motorists in a public place;

(2) Repeatedly passing objects to or receiving objects from pedestrians or motorists in a public place;

(3) Repeatedly circling in a public place in a motor vehicle and on one or more occasions passing any object to or receiving any object from a person in a public place.

d. The element of the offense described in paragraph (1) of subsection b. of this section may not be established solely by proof that the actor engaged in the conduct that is used to satisfy the element described in paragraph (2) of subsection b. of this section.

Interlaken Borough Municipal Court

Location: 100 Grasmere Avenue
Interlaken, NJ 07712

Phone: (732) 531-7405
Fax: (732) 531-7099

The judge in Interlaken court is the Honorable George Cieri, J.M.C. Court sessions are held on the last Tuesday of every month. Interlaken is a low-volume court. Mostly traffic and speeding tickets. Few DWI or criminal arrests are made in Interlaken Borough.

Depending on the value of the property alleged to have been stolen, a New Jersey charge of theft can range from a Disorderly Person Offense (Misdemeanor) all the way to a second-degree Indictable Crime (Felony).

Anyone convicted in New Jersey of theft of property valued at $75,000 or more is guilty of a second-degree crime. A NJ theft charge will also be of the second-degree if the property was taken by extortion. A second-degree charge in New Jersey is punishable by 5-10 years in Prison and a $150,000 fine.

A NJ theft charge is of the third-degree if the property involved exceeds $500 but is less than $75,000. A conviction in New Jersey for a third-degree crime carries 3-5 years in Prison and a $15,000 fine.

A charge of theft in New Jersey of property valued between $200 and $500 is a fourth-degree crime punishable by up to 18 months in Prison and a $10,000 fine. Theft of property valued under $200 is a Disorderly Persons Offense, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Lakehurst Municipal Court

Location: Lakehurst Municipal Court
Five Union Avenue
Lakehurst, NJ 08733

Phone: (732) 657-4151

The judge in Lakehurst is the Honorable Damian Murray, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Joseph Coronato, Esq. Lakehurst Police issue a fair share of traffic tickets, particularly for speeding, driving while license suspended and DWI.

New Hanover Municipal Court

Location: New Hanover Municipal Court
PO Box 142, Two Hockamick Road

Phone: (609) 758-7172

The judge in New Hanover Court is the Honorable Dennis McInerney. The prosecutor is Mark Tarantino, Esq. New Hanover and New Jersey State Police issue a fair amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal/drug arrests are also made in New Hanover.

Seaside Heights Municipal Court

Location:
116 Sheridan Ave
Seaside Heights, NJ 08751

Phone: (732) 830-2202

The judge in Seaside Heights Municipal Court is the Honorable Damian Murray. Seaside Heights make a substantial amount of criminal, drug and DWI arrests, particularly in the summer months. A fair share of traffic and speeding tickets are also issued in Seaside Heights.

Point Pleasant Borough Municipal Court

Location: 2233 Bridge Avenue
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 25
Point Pleasant, NJ 08742

Phone: (732) 899-1636
Fax: (732) 295-3521

The judge in Point Pleasant Borough Court is The Honorable James Ligouri, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Joseph Coronato, Esq. Point Pleasant police make a substantial amount of criminal and DWI arrests. A fair amount of traffic and speeding tickets are also issues in Point Pleasant.

Belmar Municipal Court

Location: 601 Main St
Belmar, NJ 07719

Phone: (732) 681-3700

The judge in Belmar Court is the Honorable Dennis Lavender. The prosecutor is Stephen G. Schueler. Belmar police make a lot of DWI and criminal arrests. A heavy amount of traffic and speeding tickets are also issued in Belmar.

Avon By The Sea Municipal Court

Location: 301 Main St.
Avon By The Sea, NJ 07717

Phone: (732) 502-4515

The judge in Avon court is the Hon. Alfred J. D'Auria, P.J.M.C. The prosecutor is Benjamin B. Choi, Esq. Avon Police issue a fair amount of speeding and other traffic tickets. Some DWI and criminal/drug possession arrests are also made in Avon by the Sea.

Toms River Municipal Court

Location: 255 Oak Ave
Toms River, NJ 08753

Phone: (732) 797-3914

The judges in Toms River Court are James A. Ligouri, J.M.C. and Damian Murray, J.M.C. There are several prosecutors in Toms River. Toms River Police issue a heavy amount of traffic and speeding tickets. A lot of DWI and criminal arrests / drug possession arrests are also made in Toms River.

Bradley Beach Municipal Court

Location: 701 Main St.
Bradley Beach, NJ 07720

Phone: (732) 776-2979

The judge in Bradley Beach Court is the Honorable Mark Apostolou, J.M.C. The prosecutor is James Shamy, Esq. Bradley Beach Police issue a fair share of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and minor criminal / drug arrests are also made in Bradley Beach.

Robbinsville Township Municipal Court / Washington Township Municipal Court

Location: 1117 Route 130
Robbinsville, NJ 08691

Phone: (609) 259-3522
Fax: (609) 208-2563

The judge in Robbinsville/Washington Twp Court is the Honorable Anthony M. Massi, J.M.C. Robbinsville Court and Washington Township Court sees a lot of traffic and speeding tickets. A fair share of DWI and drug possession/criminal arrests are also made in Robbinsville and Washington Township.

Princeton Township Municipal Court

Location: 400 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ 08542-3400

Phone: (609) 924-5042
Fax: (609) 924-5902

The judge in Princeton Twp Court is the Hon. Russell W. Annich, Jr., J.M.C. The prosecutor is Kim Otis, Esq. Princeton Twp sees a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal / drug possession arrests are also made in Princeton Twp.

Sayreville Municipal Court

Location: 1000 Main Street
Sayreville, NJ 08872

Phone: (732) 525-5446

Sayreville court sees a large amount of volume, especially for traffic and speeding tickets. A large amount of DWI and drug possession arrests are also made in Sayreville. The Hon. Mark Cholowski is the judge in Sayreville Court. Robert Blanda is the Chief Prosecutor.

target="_blank"West Windsor Township Municipal Court

Location: 20 Municipal Drive
West Windsor, NJ 08550

Phone: (609) 799-0915

West Windsor sees a fair share of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal arrests are also made in West Windsor Township. The judge in West Windsor Court is the Honorable Mary Siobhan Brennan, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Kenneth Lozier, Esq.

New Egypt Municipal Court
Plumstead Municipal Court

Location: 121 Evergreen Rd
New Egypt, NJ 08533

Phone: (609) 758-2241
Fax: (609) 758-7703

A lot of traffic and speeding are issued in New Egypt and Plumstead. A fair amount of DWI and minor criminal arrests are also made in New Egypt. The prosecutor in New Egypt/Plumstead Court is John Reilly, Esq. The judge is the Hon. Paul Carr, J.M.C.

State v. Shakur Carrasquillo, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4497-06T4 (February 17, 2010) - Dismissal of indictment for violation of IAD affirmed. "After a thorough review of the State's arguments, we decline the State's request that we reconsider our earlier determination, ... that the continuance issued to the State -- which resulted in a lengthy relaxation of the 120-day IAD time limit -- was improvidently granted and should therefore be disallowed.

Additionally, we reject the State's argument that Judge Falcone erred when he concluded that the IAD time limit expired before defendant would have been released from confinement on his New York sentence.... [T]he judge's decision on remand gave the State the benefit of a generous 123-day tolling period for the submission of briefs on defendant's motion to suppress and for scheduling and conducting the motion hearing.

Even with the benefit of that 123-day tolling, the 120-day IAD time limit was violated.... [N]othing the State has presented alters the fact that the State, having transported defendant to New Jersey, was obligated to commence his trial within 120 days of his arrival, excluding the tolling periods, but did not do so. We also recognize that the charges upon which defendant was convicted at trial are extremely serious. For that reason, the State should have been especially careful to adhere to the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-4(c). To the contrary, the first time the State initiated any discussion of possible trial dates was September 7, 2006, which was the return date of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The IAD statute demands far more." (Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4497-06-remand.pdf

State v. Rachel Marshall, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-6306-08T4 (February 23, 2010) - Order denying dismissal of indictment for violation of statute of limitations affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for further proceedings.

"On leave granted, we review the trial court's denial of defendant Rachel Marshall's motion to dismiss, as time-barred, the four discrete counts of the instant indictment that charge her individually with crimes.... [T]he trial court held that a ten-year statute of limitations should apply to the racketeering conspiracy charges in Count One.

Such a ten-year time period preceding January 26, 2009 would clearly incorporate defendant's alleged defalcations in 2001 concerning the real estate and liquor license transactions and the associated bank deposits. The trial court also found that the same ten-year statute of limitations it deemed applicable to the racketeering conspiracy charge in Count One should also be applied to the underlying substantive charges.... [T]he trial court erred in declaring that a ten-year limitations statute applies to this indictment rather than the five-year ordinary limitations period under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6b(1).

The ten-year interval described in the definitional portion of the racketeering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1d(1), is not a statute of limitations. Rather, it is a proximity measure that is part of the definition of an actionable 'pattern of racketeering activity,' requiring at least two acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to be committed within a ten-year time span.... Consequently, a five-year limitations period, rather than a ten-year period, governs this indictment....

These factual issues of timing and abandonment cannot be decided on the present record. A fair and full assessment of defendant's statute-of-limitations defense as to Count One must await the development of the facts at trial.... We reach a different conclusion as to the three substantive counts of the indictment....

We discern no reason why the normal limitations principles governing substantive crimes should not pertain here. Under those principles, as enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6b(1), defendant cannot be charged with substantive crimes more than five years after their alleged occurrence, absent a tolling argument or some other exception not invoked by the State here.... Those allegations, in essence, hearken back to defendant's actions in 2001 and do not allege on her part any new acts within the five-year statutory period." (Michael A. Robbins)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a6306-08.pdf

DYFS v. R.M./In the Matter of I.L., C.L., and I.T., ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 19 (February 5, 2010) - "Defendant R.M. appeals the order of the Family Part denying her application for the entry of a 'suspended judgment' as the disposition of the complaint filed by plaintiff New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Division) charging her with child neglect as defined by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21.

This appeal requires us to determine (1) the criteria for application of the 'suspended judgment' provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1); and (2) whether successful completion of a period of suspended judgment necessarily leads to the removal of the underlying finding of abuse or neglect from the central registry maintained by the Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11....

In summary, we conclude that the suspended judgment provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1) is generally applicable when a Family Part judge has held a dispositional hearing and is not prepared to enter an order returning the child to the parent or placing the child with the Division, but instead proposes to give the parent an opportunity to maintain the family unit based upon adherence to the particular remedial requirements established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.52(a).

We also conclude that successful completion of a period of suspended judgment does not result in expungement of the underlying finding of abuse or neglect. [W]e find no basis to conclude that the Legislature intended the suspended judgment provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1) to provide the equivalent of PTI in abuse and neglect cases.... Finally, we affirm the order on appeal, based upon our conclusion that a suspended judgment was not a viable option at the time the order was entered and that, in any event, the Family Part judge did not abuse his discretion...." (Carol Willner, Designated Counsel,for R.M.; Amy Vasquez, Designated Counsel, Law Guardian)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2081-08.pdf

DYFS v. L.L./In the Matter of T.L., ? N.J. ?, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 149 (February 24, 2010) - Denial of motion to vacate kinship legal guardianship affirmed. "We hold that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(f), prior to the vacation of a kinship legal guardianship judgment, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence both that the parent has overcome the incapacity or inability to care for the child that led to the original guardianship proceedings, and that termination of kinship legal guardianship is in the best interest of the child. We additionally hold that the party seeking to terminate the kinship legal guardianship has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of those two criteria." (T. Gary Mitchell, D.P.D., for L.L.; Melissa R. Vance, A.D.P.D., Law Guardian)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A6808DYFSvLL.pdf

In this recent NJ DYFS guardianship complaint, the court held that the defendant's late appeal should be denied where the child in question had already been adopted.

DYFS v. J.C. and T.S.L./In the Matter of J.D.L.C., ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 24 (February 11, 2010) - Motion for Leave to Appeal termination of parental rights out of time denied.

"The judgment in question was entered on August 18, 2008, and the child was adopted on July 17, 2009 -- nearly sixteen months and more than four months, respectively -- before the filing of the motions at hand.

Notwithstanding that we liberally grant such motions in guardianship appeals, see N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 354 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2002), we conclude that defendants' extraordinary delay coupled with the child's adoption requires denial of defendants' motions....

We find OPR's delay in seeking leave to file a notice of appeal to be unreasonable even when judged by our expansive approach in guardianship appeals. Considering the overarching goal of permanency for children caught up in such litigation, ... , it would simply be unconscionable for this court to permit an appeal at such a late date....

The policy that adoption creates a new family unit without fear of interference from the child's natural parents would be disserved if we were to permit the filing of defendants' nascent guardianship appeals at this late date." (Richard Foster, A.D.P.D., for J.C. and T.L.S.)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1683-09a1684-09.pdf

East Brunswick Municipal Court

Location: 1 Jean Walling Civic Center Drive
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Phone: (732) 390-6915
Fax: (732) 390-6913

Court sessions are held Mondays at 9:00 a.m., Tuesdays at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m. The judges in East Brunswick are: Hon. A. Todd Mayo, Hon. Christine M. Heitman, and Hon. Paul J. Endler. East Brunswick Police issue a heavy amount of traffic and speeding tickets along Rt. 18. A lot of DWI and criminal arrests are also made in East Brunswick.

Eatontown Municipal Court

Location: 47 Broad Street
Eatontown, NJ 07724

Phone: (732) 389-7612
Fax: (732) 389-4414

Court sessions are held on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m for traffic and 11:00 a.m. for criminal matters. The judge in Eatontown court is the Honorable Mark Apostolou, J.M.C. The court administrator is Suzann Lorusso. Eatontown police issue a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal arrests are also made in Eatontown.

Hazlet Township Municipal Court

Location: 255 Middle Road
Hazlet Twp., NJ 07730

Phone: (732) 264-2231

Court sessions are held on Thursdays. The judge in Hazlet is the Honorable Thomas F.X. Foley, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Linda Grasso Jones, Esq. Hazlet sees a lot of DWI and minor criminal arrests. A good deal of traffic and speeding tickets are also issued in Hazlet Township.

Neptune Township Municipal Court

Location: 25 Neptune Blvd
Neptune, NJ 07753

Phone: (732) 988-5200 x 282

Court sessions are Thursdays at 12:00 p.m. The judge in Neptune Township Court is the Honorable Robin Wernik, J.M.C. The prosecutor is James N. Butler, Esq. Neptune police issue a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal arrests are also made each month in Neptune Township.

In this recent criminal appeal, the defendant's conviction was reversed because his defense attorney failed to request a Wade hearing and inflammatory comments by the prosecutor to the jury.

State v. Eddie Valentine, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4986-06T4 (February 2, 2010) - Conviction reversed. "We reverse the conviction and order a new trial due to the cumulative effect of the compounding missteps that occurred in the Law Division that appreciably erode our confidence in the jury's verdict.

Significantly, because this case turned primarily upon the strength of the identification of defendant by the victim, we have reservations about the failure of defendant's trial attorney to press for and obtain a Wade hearing. Although defendant did not testify in his own defense at trial, he presented an alibi defense and challenged the State's claim that he was present at the time of the robbery.

These circumstances, along with multiple potentially problematic identification procedures employed by the police should have triggered the request for such a hearing by defense counsel, unless there was a reasonable strategic reason not to do so.

Given our uncertainty as to whether defendant was deprived of fundamental tools necessary to foster an adequate defense, in addition to our apprehension that the trial court may have unintentionally misled the jury during deliberations through an uncorrected slip of the tongue, along with certain inflammatory comments of the prosecutor, we reverse and remand for a new trial." (Brian O'Reilly, Designated Counsel)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4986-06.pdf

Allenhurst Municipal Court

Location: 125 Corlies Ave # 2
Allenhurst, NJ 07711

Phone: (732) 531-3217
Fax: (732) 531-8694

Court is held on the 3rd Thursday of each month. The judge in Allenhurst is the Honorable George Cieri, J.M.C. Allenhurst court hears a fair amount of DWI and traffic matters, such as speeding tickets. Some minor criminal arrests are also made in Allenhurst.

State v. Fareed M. Gandhi, ? N.J. ?, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 147 (February 23, 2010) - Conviction for third degree stalking affirmed. "The anti-stalking statute that criminalized defendant's actions provided that a person is guilty of stalking 'if he purposefully or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family or to fear the death of himself or a member of his immediate family.'

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b).... The Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, agreed with defendant's argument that a conviction for stalking requires a showing of defendant's purpose or knowledge of the impact of his behavior on his victim and, further, requires a showing that the conduct was repeated.

However, the Appellate Division held that the trial court's instruction to the jury, which tracked the model jury charge for stalking, satisfactorily expressed those requirements.... [B]ased on the statutory language and the history to the statutory offense of stalking, we do not discern a legislative intent to restrict the applicability of the anti-stalking statute to a stalker-defendant who purposefully or knowingly intended that his course of conduct would cause a reasonable victim to fear bodily injury or death.

Rather the plain language of the statutory offense, reasonably read, prohibits a defendant from purposefully or knowingly engaging in a course of conduct, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(a)(1), that would cause such fear in an objectively reasonable person. A statute's culpability requirement generally applies to all elements of a crime unless a contrary intent may be discerned. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c)(1). Here we find such a contrary intent.

We find that the Legislature intended to cast a wide net of protection for stalking victims by broadly prohibiting and punishing persistent, unwanted, and frightening behaviors.... We hold that the statutory offense reaches and punishes one who engages in a course of stalking conduct even if that person is operating under the motivation of an obsessed and disturbed love that purportedly obscures appreciation of the terror that his or her conduct would reasonably cause to the victimized person. Defendant's claim of error in the jury charge given by the trial court is therefore rejected." (Warren S. Hecht; Michael J. Sullivan for amicus curiae ACDL-NJ)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A10108StatevFareedGandhi.pdf

Manchester Township Municipal Court

Location: 1 Colonial Drive
Manchester, NJ 08759

Phone: (732) 657-8121 ext. 3407

The judge in Manchester court is the Honorable Daniel F. Sahin, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Valter Must, Esq. A large amount of speeding and other traffic tickets are issued in Manchester Township. Manchester Police also make a fair amount of DWI and minor criminal arrests.