Our DWI Credentials are Exceptional, 7 DWI Defense Lawyers
Our work has been featured in
The Star Ledger
CNBC
LAW & ORDER
Asbury Park Press
ABC
House M.D.
USA Today

by

In many instances, even if a person is convicted of DWI, he or she may be able to obtain post-conviction relief. While there are substantive requirements a person must meet to obtain a reversal of a DWI conviction, there are procedural requirements as well. This was discussed in a recent case in which the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the denial of a defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief, due to the defendant’s extreme delay in seeking such relief. If you were previously convicted of DWI or currently face DWI charges, it is wise to speak with a New Jersey DWI defense attorney to your options for protecting your rights.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant pled guilty to two separate DWI charges twenty-eight and twenty-five years before he filed two petitions for post-conviction relief in 2018, asking the court to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. The defendant argued, in part, that he was not represented by an attorney for the first conviction, and that for both convictions, the court did not elicit the factual basis for either conviction, and he was not informed of his potential defenses or the consequences of entering a guilty plea. The municipal court denied the petitions, after which the defendant appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed.

Procedural Requirements for Seeking Post-Conviction Relief

Under New Jersey law, any petition seeking post-conviction relief must be filed within five years after a conviction is entered, or a sentence is imposed, unless the defendant can demonstrate that the delay in filing was due to his or her excusable neglect. In the subject case, the defendant argued that the delay was caused by his lack of knowledge regarding the law and his ignorance of the consequence of DWI convictions. Thus, the court found that the defendant failed to establish that his neglect in filing the petitions in a timely manner was excusable. Continue reading

by

When some people are stopped by the police due to suspicion of DWI, they may be tempted to avoid exiting their vehicles, under the mistaken belief that they can avoid a DWI charge by refusing to submit to field sobriety testing. However, as demonstrated in a recent case ruled on by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, an officer’s observations of a person in a vehicle may be sufficient for there to be reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty of DWI. If you are charged with a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is sensible to meet with a New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your potential defenses.

Factual Background

It is reported that a police officer observed the defendant making a turn into the wrong lane of traffic. He pulled the defendant over, at which time he noticed a strong smell of alcohol emanating from her car, and that her eyes were bloodshot and watery. The officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety testing and she refused. Two other officers responded to the scene, and each independently requested the defendant to exit the vehicle to submit to field sobriety testing, and she once again refused. She was ultimately arrested for obstructing the administration of the law and transported to the police station.

Allegedly, while at the police station, the defendant submitted to a breath test that revealed her blood alcohol content to be 0.91%. She was charged with DWI, reckless driving, and obstructing the administration of the law. She was found guilty of all charges and appealed, arguing in part that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to order her out of her car or probable cause to arrest her. Continue reading

by

In most New Jersey DWI cases, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of a crime. In cases in which the defendant pleads guilty, however, the State’s burden differs. Thus, it is critical for someone considering entering a guilty plea to fully understand the ramifications of the plea and how the plea may affect his or her defenses thereafter. This was demonstrated in a recent New Jersey DWI case in which the defendant was convicted after he pled guilty and then argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. If you are charged with a DWI offense in New Jersey, it is advisable to engage a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney who will work hard to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with his second DWI offense. He filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. A municipal court hearing was held on the motion, during which the officer that arrested the defendant testified that he observed the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of his car, with the engine running and the lights on, at a gas station in the middle of the night. Further, he testified that the windshield was smashed and the front bumper was damaged. When the officer woke the defendant, he had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and smelled of alcohol. He subsequently submitted to field sobriety tests, which he failed.

Allegedly, the defendant testified that on the night of his arrest, he hit a deer and then drove to a gas station and called his mother. He stated that while he was waiting for his mother, he drank four beers from a six-pack he had in his car. The municipal court judge did not find the defendant’s story to be credible and denied his motion to dismiss. The defendant appealed, and the Law Division affirmed, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant operated his vehicle, after which the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. He was sentenced, then appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. Continue reading

by

Under New Jersey law, there are defined procedures the police must adhere to when administering a breath test to a DWI defendant to determine the defendant’s blood-alcohol level. If the police deviate from the procedures set forth under the law, the results of the test may be invalid. In a recent case, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, elaborated on the requirements regarding continuous observation prior to a breath test, and ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal of his DWI conviction. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with a DWI offense, it is critical to retain a skillful New Jersey DWI defense attorney who will fight vigorously on your behalf.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Arrest and Breath Test

It is alleged that a police officer approached the defendant’s car, which was parked on the side of the road, after which the officer observed that the defendant smelled like alcohol and had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. The defendant admitted to consuming several beers at a nearby bar. The officer did not perform a field sobriety test but charged the defendant with DWI. The defendant was transported to a police station where he was placed in a holding cell. The officer sat outside the cell a few feet away to make sure the defendant did not eat or drink anything that could alter the results of a breath test.

Reportedly, approximately twenty minutes later, a second officer administered Alcotest, a breath test, which revealed the defendant’s blood-alcohol level to be 0.22%. The defendant was convicted of DWI, which was his third DWI offense, and sentenced to 180 days imprisonment and a ten-year license suspension. The defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the arresting officer did not observe the defendant for twenty minutes prior to administering Alcotest as required by law. Continue reading

by

In many instances in which a defendant is charged with a DWI offense, the key disputed issue is whether the defendant actually operated a vehicle while intoxicated. Thus, in many cases, the prosecution will seek to introduce circumstantial evidence that suggests the defendant was driving prior to his or her arrest. Any court considering what evidence should be admitted must conduct a balancing test between whether the evidence is relevant or unduly prejudicial. However, the introduction of inappropriate evidence may constitute a violation of the defendant’s rights. This was evidenced in a recent case in which the court overturned a verdict convicting the defendant of multiple DWI related crimes due to the admission of inappropriate hearsay evidence. If you are a resident of New Jersey currently faced with DWI charges, it is important to retain an assertive New Jersey DWI defense attorney who will fight to protect your rights.

The Defendant’s Charges and Convictions

It is reported that the defendant was charged with driving during a license suspension for a second or subsequent DWI, DWI, and numerous other traffic offenses. The main issue at trial was whether the defendant actually operated the vehicle prior to his arrest. The defendant presented testimony from his wife that she was driving and left the defendant by the side of the road after an argument. Conversely, the State presented testimony from the arresting officer that he was dispatched after a 911 call reporting that an intoxicated male had crashed his vehicle and was stuck on the side of the road.

Following the trial, the defendant was convicted of all counts and sentenced to 365 days in jail for the crime of driving with a suspended license and 180 days in jail for the DWI. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony regarding the 911 call. Upon review, the appellate court agreed, finding the testimony was hearsay and unduly prejudicial, and reversed the defendant’s convictions. Continue reading

by

A person charged with a DWI has the right to a prompt resolution of his or her case. Thus, if the State unjustly delays prosecution of a case, it may result in a dismissal. A DWI defendant seeking dismissal of his or her charges due to a delay must prove certain criteria, however. In a recent case, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey examined the factors assessed in evaluating whether a DWI defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated. If you are faced with charges of a DWI offense, it is prudent to consult a seasoned attorney to discuss your rights and your options for seeking a favorable result.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

A police officer stopped the defendant for failing to stay within the lines of the road. When the officer approached the defendant’s vehicle, he noted an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle and from the defendant’s breath. The defendant underwent a series of field sobriety tests, which he was unable to perform. He was arrested for DWI, and he agreed to submit to a breath test, but he did not produce enough breath for the police to obtain an accurate reading. He was charged with DWI and numerous other charges.

In October 2016, the defendant pleaded not guilty and demanded a speedy trial. The trial was continually delayed, however. The defendant filed multiple motions to dismiss on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated, but the motions were denied. Then, in 2018, the defendant filed a conditional guilty plea to the DWI charge, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The defendant then appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss to the law division. The law division affirmed, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

Continue reading

by

When a person is charged with a DWI crime, it does not necessarily mean that he or she will be convicted. To the contrary, in some cases, the State’s evidence will be insufficient, or the State will be precluded from introducing evidence against the defendant, due to the manner in which it was obtained. In some cases, even if the State can prove that a defendant drove while intoxicated, the defendant may be able to avoid a conviction by arguing the affirmative defense of necessity. In a recent DWI case, the appellate division of the Superior Court of New Jersey discussed what a defendant alleging necessity must prove to avoid a guilty verdict.  If you are charged with a DWI crime, it is wise to speak to an experienced attorney regarding your available defenses.

Facts and Proceedings of the Underlying Case

Allegedly, police officers found the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of her car in the parking lot of a grocery store. Her lights were on, and the keys were in the ignition. When the officers questioned the defendant, they noticed a strong odor of alcohol, and she admitted to drinking seven shots of liquor. She was arrested for DWI, and a breath sample revealed her BAC to be .19%. She was charged with DWI and reckless driving. She pleaded guilty to the DWI charge and was sentenced.

The defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate her guilty plea, arguing the defense of necessity. The court denied her motion, and the defendant appealed to the Law Division. Her appeal to the Law Division was also denied, after which she appealed to the Superior Court. On review, the Superior Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, finding, in part, that the defendant failed to prove that the elements of necessity required a reversal.

Continue reading

by

Multiple DWI convictions can result in severe consequences, including the loss of a driver’s license. Thus, it is prudent for anyone charged with DWI to consult an attorney to discuss which defenses may be available to help avoid a conviction or reduce any penalties. This was demonstrated in a recent case, in which a defendant sought to appeal a prior DWI conviction that was entered following a hearing during which he was not represented by counsel. If you were recently charged with a DWI offense in New Jersey, a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney can discuss the steps that you can take to protect your rights.

Facts of the Underlying Case

The defendant was arrested and charged with DWI in 2003. He appeared before the court without counsel and entered a guilty plea. During the hearing, the judge advised the defendant of the consequences of entering a guilty plea and explained the impact of multiple convictions. The judge did not advise the defendant, however, that he had the right to request that the court appoint an attorney to defend him if he could not afford to retain counsel. The defendant entered a guilty plea, regardless. The defendant was subsequently charged with and convicted of two other DWI crimes. For his third offense, he received a 10-year license suspension.

In 2016, the defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle with a license that was suspended for a second or subsequent DWI conviction. The defendant was found guilty. Prior to sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his 2003 guilty plea. The municipal court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Following a trial before the Law Division, the defendant’s appeal was denied, and he was sentenced to 364 days in prison. He then appealed the denial of his appeal and his sentence.

Continue reading

by

Under New Jersey law, DWI defendants are not required to offer any evidence in their defense. Instead, the burden is on the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant committed each element of the charged offense. In some cases, however, it may be beneficial for a defendant to introduce evidence in his or her defense, such as expert testimony regarding the cause of an accident. In a recent case, a New Jersey appellate court discussed the weight that each party’s evidence should be accorded in assessing a DWI defendant’s guilt. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with a DWI crime, it is wise to speak with a proficient New Jersey DWI attorney to assess what you can do to attempt to avoid a conviction.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with DWI and was convicted following a trial. The defendant appealed, arguing that the observation evidence introduced by the State was insufficient to sustain a conviction and that the trial judge failed to grant proper weight to the defendant’s expert.

Evidence Introduced at Trial

At trial, the State introduced evidence that the defendant drove off the road and through a fence, after which he struck a tree. The impact caused the defendant’s vehicle’s airbags to deploy and caused a fire in the engine. A police officer investigating the accident noted an odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, and he observed that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and had urinated on himself. The defendant admitted to drinking two martinis as well. The officer administered a field sobriety test, which the defendant failed.

Continue reading

by

While most DWI charges arise out of traffic stops effectuated due to a traffic violation, under New Jersey law, a person may be charged with a DWI even if they are not actually observed driving a vehicle. Instead, the State must prove that a defendant charged with a DWI was operating a vehicle at the time of his or her arrest. As demonstrated in a recent case in which the defendant was convicted of a DWI despite the fact that he was sleeping in his car prior to his arrest, operation is broadly defined and is not limited to driving. If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is advisable to consult a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney to examine the evidence that the State may try to introduce to prove your guilt.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, a police officer noticed a truck parked in a restaurant parking lot early in the morning. The restaurant was not open at the time, and there were no other cars in the lot. The officer approached the truck, which was running, and observed the defendant sleeping in the driver’s seat, with an empty beer can in the center console. Upon questioning by the officer, the defendant, who smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech, stated that he had consumed a few beers at a casino in Atlantic City and then dropped off a friend.

The defendant failed a field sobriety test, after which he was arrested and transported to the police station. A breath test conducted at the police station revealed the defendant’s blood alcohol level to be .17%. The defendant was charged with and convicted of DWI. The defendant then appealed, averring that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was operating his truck while he was impaired by alcohol. Continue reading