New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Trenton Juvenile Court

Any juvenile living in Mercer County charged with a criminal charge will have their case heard in the Mercer County Family Court. New Jersey law requires that any child appearing in juvenile delinquency court must be represented by an attorney. A parent cannot represent the juvenile, and the juvenile may not represent his or her self. I have defended juveniles against a wide variety of charges. These include DWI, assault, robbery, eluding, and drug charges. Call now for a consultation on your child's case.

Mercer County - New Jersey

Mercer County's county seat is Trenton, the state capital. It is officially part of the New York Metropolitan Area and the Trenton-Ewing Metropolitan Statistical Area. Unofficially, it is considered part of the Delaware Valley. According to the Census Bureau, it has a total area of 229 square miles, most of which (98.73%) is land, composed of 13 municipalities.

Mercer County houses Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, the Institute for Advanced Study, Rider University, The College of New Jersey, Thomas Edison State College and Mercer County Community College.

As of the U.S. 2010 Census, the population was 366,513, a small increase from the 2000 census figure of 350,761 people.

Out of the 125,807 households, almost a third (32.80%) had children under the age of 18 living with them. Half of these households (50.60%) were married couples living together; almost a third of them (31.40%) were non-families, and a fourth (25.60%) was made up of individuals.

The racial structure of the county in 2000 was 68.48% White, 19.81% Black or African American, 9.66% Hispanic or Latino of any race and 4.94% Asian. By 2010 this composition had changed to 58.4% White, 19% Black, 12.8% Hispanic or Latino and 7.8% Asian. First ancestries cited by the residents in the 2000 Census were 15.5% Italian, 9.7% Irish, 8.2% German, 6.7% Polish and 5.7% English

This county ranks 80th among the highest-income counties in the country and 57th by per capita income. In 2000 the median household income was $56,613 and $71,650 in 2009. The per capita income in 2000 was $27,914 with males having a median income of $47,444 versus $34,788 for females. The median income for a family was $68,494, which rose to $85,169 as of a 2007 estimate. The estimated median value of a house or condo in 2000 was $143,600 and $317,600 in 2009. The January 2011 cost of living index in Mercer County was 120.2. Approximately 5.90% of the families and 8.60% of the population were below the poverty line in 2000. By 2008, the overall percentage of residents living in poverty was 11.1% (6.2% for White Non-Hispanics, 19.1% for Blacks and 22.9% for Hispanic or Latino). In April 2010 unemployment stood at 7.9% versus 9.6% for the whole state.

The median age of the population was 36 years in 2000, with 24.00% under the age of 18 and 12.60% for residents 65 years of age or older.

Two thirds of the population earns a private wage or salary and 21% are engaged in government jobs.

Data from the 2000 census for educational attainment of the population 25 and older show that 25.6% have completed high school, including equivalency. A comparison with state averages confirms that holders of associate's degree, bachelor's degree, and master's, professional or doctorate degrees are par for state figures (22.3% vs. 22.9%, 18.5% vs. 18.8% and 15.5% vs. 11.0%, respectively).

Total number of crimes reported in 2000 in Mercer County was 14,151, including 17 murders, 99 rapes, 830 robberies, 866 aggravated assaults, 2,634 burglaries, 7,705 larcenies/thefts and 1,909 motor vehicle thefts.

Toms River Drug Arrest Lawyer

A Toms River drug conviction can have disastrous consequences. All drug charges in New Jersey carry the possibility of jail, fines and mandatory driver's license suspension. For indictable drug charges, the law calls for prison time depending on the crime and the individual's record. Defenses and diversionary programs exist for Toms River drug charges. If you are facing a drug charge in Toms River, call now to speak to a NJ drug charge lawyer.

The majority of drug arrests in Toms River are for marijuana possession. However, Toms River has seen a huge spike in heroin usage in the last 10 years. Lately, prescription painkillers such as oxycontin have resulted in a large proportion of Toms River drug arrests.

Toms River Drug Charges

Toms River is the judicial hub of Ocean County. Toms River itself is one of New Jersey's largest municipalities. The Superior Court for Ocean County is located in Toms River. The Ocean County Prosecutor's Office and the Ocean County Sheriff's Office are also located in Toms River.

The overwhelming bulk of drug arrests in Toms River are for marijuana possession. Whether the charge is a felony (indictable) charge or a misdemeanor (disorderly persons offense) depends on the type of case it is. For example, Possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana in New Jersey is a disorderly persons offense. The statute that controls this charge is NJSA 2C:35-10(a)4.

If you are arrested for possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana, your case will be heard in the Dover Township (Toms River) Municipal Court. However, if you are also charged with indictable offenses, your case will likely be heard in the Ocean County Superior Court.

The charge of possession of drug paraphernalia is governed by NJSA 2C:36-2. Marijuana is commonly smoked with hollowed out cigars, rolling papers, and various types of pipes. State Police laboratories sometimes fail to test these items for the presence of drugs when they are sent to the lab along with suspected CDS (controlled dangerous substance). Attorney's must be very careful to check the laboratory report carefully in all drug cases. Seems obvious, but is sometimes overlooked.

Both possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana are disorderly persons offenses. All disorderly persons convictions in New Jersey carry up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Additionally, possession of marijuana less than 50 grams carries a mandatory $500 DEDR penalty. Both these charges also carry a minimum 6 month driver's license suspension.

The license suspension can only be avoided if the judge is convinced that to suspend your license would constitute an undue hardship to you. The license suspension applies whether or not the offense took place in a motor vehicle. If you are caught with drugs in a motor vehicle, you will also be probably issued a traffic ticket for violating NJSA 39:4-49.1, CDS in a motor vehicle. This ticket carries a mandatory 2 year driver's license suspension.

Possession of 50 grams of marijuana or more is a crime of the 4th degree. A fourth degree crime in New Jersey is punishable by up to 18 months in prison. If your jail sentence is more than 364 days, you cannot serve it in the Ocean County jail but must be sent to a New Jersey State Prison.

Possession of prescription pills, cocaine or heroin in Toms River are crimes of the third degree. Crimes of the 3rd degree in New Jersey are punishable by up to 5 years in prison. For all drug convictions in New Jersey, there is a minimum 6 month driver's license suspension. This applies for both adult and juvenile drug charges.

Toms River Criminal Court

In addition to the drug arrests that are made in Toms River, the Superior Court for Ocean County is located in downtown Toms River. Therefore, all indictable drug charges that are filed by police in Ocean County are heard in Toms River. As mentioned, disorderly persons offenses are heard in the local Municipal Court in which they were charged. If your son or daughter has been charged with a Toms River juvenile criminal offense, like a juvenile drug charge, their case will be heard in the Ocean County Family Court.

If you are facing a Toms River drug charge, I can help. Call to speak with a New Jersey drug charge lawyer.

Aliens who are convicted in New Jersey of certain crimes will be issued a "Notice to Appear" by federal authorities. If the defendant was not given proper notice that their plea would lead to deportation/removal, a post conviction relief application may be appropriate. A New Jersey PCR lawyer can guide you through the process.

Unlike most other areas of criminal law, both New Jersey and federal courts in recent years have softened on this issue. The real underlying issue is whether the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. While this argument can be made on direct appeal, it is more appropriately raised in PCR proceedings. My office handles these types of cases. Give us a call for an evaluation of your case.

Continue reading "NJ Post Conviction Relief to Avoid Immigration Deportation" »

State v. William E. Rivera, - Convictions affirmed.

Continue reading "NJ Appeal for Murder Conviction " »

State v. Larry Peppers, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-6199-07T4 (April 29, 2011) - Conviction reversed. In this case, the defendant recently won his appeal by arguing that his statement should have been suppressed.

Continue reading "New Jersey Defendant Win on Miranda Rights Issue" »

State v. Caryn Bradley, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS ? (April 7, 2011) - Dismissal of appeal affirmed. " In this recent appeal the court held that a private citizen in New Jersey does not have standing to appeal the failure of the municipal court to file the complaint.

Continue reading "Private Citizen Complaint Appeal - New Jersey " »

State v. Stephen Wortman, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-3403-06T4 (January 21, 2011) - Convictions reversed. "Because the record does not support the judge's determination that defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived counsel, we reverse and remand.... First, defendant contends that the judge erred in denying the prosecutor's motion to remove his pro se status because he did not require defendant to submit to a psychological examination to determine his mental competency, as standby counsel requested.... To summarize, there was significant evidence that defendant was delusional, including: claims he made about discovery violations by the State; the prosecutor damaging the tape of the domestic violence trial to render portions of it inaudible; the sixteen hidden frames behind each picture on the films from the motel's security cameras that he could see but others could not; the hidden frames showing that the victim regularly visited his room; the hidden frames showing that the police gained entry to his room and searched it before the alleged crime was reported; standby counsel's purported long-term racism; and defendant's reliance on the hidden frames to reject a generous plea offer when the evidence of guilt was strong. The perceptions of the prosecutor and standby counsel that he was delusional had support in the record, as the judge tacitly acknowledged. It was the duty of the judge to determine whether the defendant had the mental competence required by the line of cases culminating with Edwards and McNeil to exercise his Faretta rights and waive his constitutional right to counsel. That duty could not be discharged on this record without a mental-status examination and an expert opinion on whether defendant was mentally ill and not competent to waive his right to counsel. The judge erred when he failed to order the examination requested by counsel.... Second, defendant asserts that the judge should have conducted an evidentiary
hearing to probe the reasons for defendant's 'hostility to representation by standby counsel and the Public Defender's
office.'... We recognize defendant at no point specifically described the initial conflict of interest with the Public Defender's office and presented no proofs to support his allegations of racial animus by standby counsel, although he claimed to have them, including an incarcerated witness. Standby counsel did explain his involvement with defendant, who had been a client of the Public Defender's office in the past, but we have found no place in the record where he expressly denied the alleged racially biased conduct when he was a juvenile. Even if he had denied it, the judge would still have been required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant had 'substantial cause' justifying the assignment of new counsel.... [T]he judge ought not to have assumed that these claims were a mere ploy to change counsel simply because defendant did not like the one appointed.... Third, defendant urges that the judge erred in allowing him to act pro se at trial without 'sufficient inquiry' regarding his knowledge of the effect of a waiver of counsel to determine whether that waiver, made three years earlier, was still knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.... [C]ontrary to Rule 1:7-4(a), the judge did not make fact-findings. He did not explore the bona fides of defendant's claim of a knowing waiver of counsel and determine whether it was 'real or feigned.'... In short, the judge did not use 'extensive prophylactic measures to assess' defendant's understanding of his rights.... His conclusion that defendant's waiver of counsel was competent, knowing, and intelligent is not supported by the record.... We have not forgotten defendant's contention that the judge erred in ordering a First Assistant Public Defender to appear at trial on July 28, 2006, when standby counsel called in sick.... The judge failed to appreciate the role of standby counsel. Although they do not try the case, they are intimately familiar with the evidence and issues in the case and necessarily draw upon that knowledge in providing assistance to the accused. Rules of evidence and procedure are not applied in a vacuum, as the developments that day at trial clearly demonstrated. We are satisfied that it was an abuse of the judge's discretion to require defendant to proceed with the trial in the absence of assigned standby counsel. The judge ought to have carried the trial until standby counsel was well enough to proceed."

State v. Daniel Twian Brown, ? N.J. ?, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 81 (January 25, 2011) - Convictions and denial of suppression of statements affirmed.

Continue reading "New Jersey Criminal Statement Law Update" »

State v. Damu Alston, ? N.J. ?, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 15 (January 20, 2011) - Judgment admitting confession into evidence at trial affirmed.

Continue reading "Defendant Asks for Lawyer, but Court still Allowed Confession" »

State v. Daniel Twian Brown, ? N.J. ?, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 81 (January 25, 2011) - Convictions and denial of suppression of statements affirmed. "This case involves the validity of a warrantless arrest and its impact on defendant's post-arrest statements to the police.

Continue reading "Defendant's Statement was Properly Admitted at Trial " »

State v. Damu Alston, ? N.J. ?, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 15 (January 20, 2011) - Judgment admitting confession into evidence at trial affirmed. "This appeal requires this Court to consider whether the statements made by defendant immediately after he signed the waiver of his rights were an ambiguous assertion of his right to counsel and whether the detective's questions in response constituted a permissible clarification....

Continue reading "Confession made Shortly After Miranda Warnings Was Not Ambiguous" »

State v. Bernard E. Lopez, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS ? (December 9, 2010) - "Because the trial court erroneously barred defendant from testifying in the second trial, thus depriving him of a fundamental constitutional right, we reverse the certain persons conviction, vacate the five-year sentence imposed and remand for a new trial on that charge.... This ruling was apparently premised on the judge's view that the trial on the certain persons charge was merely the second phase of the first trial, and that defendant's waiver of the right to testify in the first phase carried over to the second phase. That view was erroneous. Although it was heard by the same jury, the second proceeding was a separate trial, in which defendant retained all of his constitutional due process rights, including the right to testify.... Consequently, a waiver of the right to testify in the unlawful possession trial does not constitute a waiver of the right to testify in a later trial on a separate charge."

Jackson Township, along with New Jersey State Police, make a substantial amount of arrests in Jackson Township for marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. The overwhelming majority of these arrests are made as a result of automobile searches. Some marijuana arrests are also made at Six Flags Great Adventure, which park is in the Jurisdiction of the Jackson Township Municipal Court.

If you have been arrested in Jackson, New Jersey for possession of marijuana, you will likely be processed and released with a complaint and summons to appear in the Jackson court within a week or so. This first court appearance is called an arraignment. At the arraignment, Judge Sahin will read you the charges as outlined by the complaint issued by the arresting officer. Judge Sahin is also the judge in Manchester Twp and Plumstead Twp courts as well. The judge will advise you of the potential consequences of the charges and tell you what your rights are.

Chief among these rights are your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. The judge will then take your plea, either guilty or not-guilty. It is almost never advisable to plead guilty at your first appearance, and most judges will not allow you to do so. If you retain a criminal defense attorney before the arraignment, your appearance may be waived - meaning you will not have to attend.

Your attorney will then request all "discovery" (evidence) from the Jackson Township Police (or the New Jersey State Police). After reviewing the evidence with you, a good attorney will explain the various search and seizure issues that may exist in your case, explain your best options, and then fight to achieve the result you desire.

State v. Bernard E. Lopez, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS ? (December 9, 2010) - "Because the trial court erroneously barred defendant from testifying in the second trial, thus depriving him of a fundamental constitutional right, we reverse the certain persons conviction, vacate the five-year sentence imposed and remand for a new trial on that charge.... This ruling was apparently premised on the judge's view that the trial on the certain persons charge was merely the second phase of the first trial, and that defendant's waiver of the right to testify in the first phase carried over to the second phase. That view was erroneous. Although it was heard by the same jury, the second proceeding was a separate trial, in which defendant retained all of his constitutional due process rights, including the right to testify.... Consequently, a waiver of the right to testify in the unlawful possession trial does not constitute a waiver of the right to testify in a later trial on a separate charge."

State v. Antuan J. Daniels, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-3841-07T4 (December 23, 2010) - Conviction reversed, suppression ordered.

Continue reading "NJ Police Search of Car Trunk Ruled Illegal" »