Expired Brazil license no defense to driving without license in NJ
State v. Evangelista A-2481-21
Defendant appealed trial court's order after a trial de novo of his municipal conviction for driving without a license. Defendant, a Brazilian national residing in New Jersey, was charged with the unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and other motor vehicle violations. With representation by counsel, defendant appeared via Zoom at a remote municipal court proceeding in which he pleaded guilty to violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-10 in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. Municipal court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to thirty days in jail. Defendant appealed and obtained a trial de novo. Trial court upheld municipal court's decision and sentenced defendant to thirty days in jail. Defendant appealed, arguing municipal court applied an obsolete version of N.J.S.A. 39:3-10, he was not guilty because he was previously licensed in Brazil, his sentence was illegal, and the proceedings were flawed because no Portuguese translator was provided. Court affirmed. As amended in 2021, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10 might have made it easier for defendant, as an immigrant, to obtain a valid New Jersey driver's license, but the fact remained that defendant still had not done so on the date of his violation in October 2021. Defendant knew he was not permitted to drive in New Jersey with his Brazilian license because he had a prior conviction for the same infraction, for which he received jail time. Nor was defendant's sentence illegal. The statute provides that a driver who has never been licensed, in New Jersey or elsewhere, may only be punished with a fine, but defendant previously held a driver's license in Brazil. That made him eligible for imprisonment under N.J.S.A. 39:3-10. Defendant's sentence also was in keeping with his record of infractions and related factors. Finally, there was no flaw in the proceedings merely because Portuguese was defendant's first language. Neither defendant nor his counsel requested an interpreter or indicated defendant had difficulty communicating in English. source NJLJ July 26, 2023
