STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIELLE N. DIANGELO

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIELLE N. DIANGELO

A-2230-11T1

We consider whether the scope of the Supreme Court's holding announced in State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011), addressing jail credit calculations, extends to a defendant sentenced to a custodial term for a violation of probation (VOP). We conclude the public policy expressed by the Court in Hernandez equally applies to VOP sentences. Following this policy, we determine the issuance of the VOP statement of charges to a defendant held in custody triggers the right to receive jail credits against the VOP sentence for a defendant's period of pre-adjudication custody, as well as against the new offense, irrespective of whether a VOP summons or warrant was issued. Accordingly, the trial court's order denying defendant's application for jail credits against her VOP sentence is reversed. 02/13/14

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAYMOND E. TROXELL

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAYMOND E. TROXELL

A-3730-10T2

Defendant was convicted of murder as an accomplice to his co-defendant, Marsh. The jury answered a specific interrogatory finding that defendant "as an accomplice [to Marsh] procured the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(4). The finding of this "triggering event" made defendant eligible for a mandatory sentence of life without parole. The jury subsequently found aggravating factor (e), resulting in imposition of the mandatory sentence.

On appeal, defendant argued for the first time that the judge was required to provide the jury with instructions that permitted it to return a "non-unanimous" verdict on the triggering event, analogizing the situation to prior death penalty jurisprudence which required such a charge.

We concluded that, pursuant to the 2007 amendments that repealed New Jersey's death penalty and made significant changes to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, such an non-unanimity instruction is not required or appropriate, nor was there any independent constitutional basis requiring
the instruction. We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. 02/13/14  

State v. Joseph Diorio (A-110-11; 069597)

State v. Joseph Diorio (A-110-11; 069597)

 For purposes of the statute of limitations, when a
defendant engages in a scheme to obtain the property
of another by deception, theft by deception is a
continuing offense. If the scheme involves the
promise to pay at a later date, the limitations period
does not commence until the day after payment is due.
Money laundering is a continuous offense only when
there is evidence of successive acts that facilitate
the common scheme to defraud. Applying these
principles here, the statute of limitations on the
theft by deception charge expired prior to return of
the indictment, thereby barring Diorio’s prosecution
for that offense. In contrast, the money laundering
charge was timely since the relevant transactions
occurred within five years before the indictment was
filed. 2-12-14

State v. Fedner Pierre-Louis (A-61-12; 071552)

State v. Fedner Pierre-Louis (A-61-12; 071552)

 The trial court’s findings were not sufficient on
either prong of the Strickland/Fritz standard to allow
for a definitive ruling on defendant’s PCR petition or
appellate review of that decision. 2-10-14

State v. Derrick Brown, Leroy Cartarphen, and Kareem Strong

 State v. Derrick Brown, Leroy Cartarphen, and Kareem
Strong (A-113-11; 070200)

 The State did not establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that 820 Line Street in the City of Camden,
although in decrepit condition, was abandoned or that
defendants were trespassers, thus failing to justify
the warrantless search of the property. 1-29-14