NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1788-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIE R. RAINS,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 8, 2019 – Decided May 23, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 16-12- 1226.
Jeffrey E. Snow, attorney for appellant.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Kayla Elizabeth Rowe, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Willie R. Raines appeals from his November 8, 2017
conviction after a June 5, 2017 order denied his motion to dismiss the indictment
against him alleging fourth-degree driving while suspended for a second offense
of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). Defendant pled
guilty and was sentenced to one year of probation, to terminate with the
expiration of his custodial sentence of 270 days in jail, 180 days without parole.
In support of his appeal, he repeats his arguments made to the trial court: (1) he
claims he was not afforded counsel for his first DWI conviction; (2) he was
sentenced as a first offender for his second DWI conviction; (3) the court failed
to advise defendant orally of the consequences of driving while on suspension
for his second DWI conviction; and (4) at the time of his first DWI conviction,
N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) and N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 were not yet effective. We reject
these arguments and affirm.
In October 1979, defendant was found guilty of DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50,
in Willingboro Township Municipal Court. Defendant claims he did not have
counsel. On May 19, 2016, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to his
second DWI. At the request of the State, the municipal court treated defendant's
second DWI as his first for sentencing purposes pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-
50(a)(3) because his second offense took place more than ten years after the
A-1788-17T4 2 first. The municipal court also relied on the State's two potential proof
problems: (1) the blood alcohol readings were .102 and .104, leaving open a
.005 differential pursuant to State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, (2008) and (2) a possible
problem with respect to changing the mouthpiece between the two readings.
On May 27, 2016, defendant was stopped for using his cell phone whil e
driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3. Defendant was issued a ticket for driving while his
license was revoked, N.J.S.A. 39:3-40. He was indicted for fourth-degree
operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or
subsequent DWI, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b).
On June 5, 2017, after oral argument, the trial court denied defendant's
motion to dismiss the indictment. The following day, defendant pled guilty to
the indictment, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his dismissal motion.1
Defendant, who was fifty-seven years old and had graduated high school,
explained that he drove due to an emergency. A pipe burst in his ill mother's
home, water was all over the floor, and he could not find anyone to give him a
ride to assist her.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
1 The judgment of conviction incorrectly states that defendant waived his right to appeal. See R. 3:9-3(d). A-1788-17T4 3 POINT I: THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO AN INCREASED PERIOD OF INCARCERATION AS A RESULT OF HIS PRIOR UNCOUNSELED DWI CONVICTION IN 1979. (THE LEGAL ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT HAS BEEN EXPANDED IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN STATE V. FAISON).
POINT II: DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO BE SENTENCED UNDER N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 AS OPPOSED TO N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) FOLLOWING HIS MAY 19, 2016 CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE SINCE HE WAS SENTENCED AS A FIRST OFFENDER PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3).
POINT III: ON MAY 19, 2016, THE COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING A SECOND (2ND) CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.
POINT IV: THE ENHANCED CRIMINAL STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED, AS WELL AS THE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING A CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ORIGINALLY CONVICTED IN 1979.
We review a trial court's decision denying a defendant's motion to dismiss
an indictment for an abuse of discretion. State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 55
A-1788-17T4 4 (2015). We do, however, decide legal issues such as those presented here de
novo. Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 330 (2010).
I.
Defendant argues in Point I that because his first DWI conviction dates
from 1979 and was uncounseled, 2 he should not have been sentenced to the
mandatory jail term required upon conviction of operating a motor vehicle while
on the suspended list for a second or subsequent DWI conviction.
Defendants charged with DWI are entitled to counsel. Rodriguez v.
Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281, 285 (1971). A prior uncounseled DWI conviction may
not be used to increase a defendant's custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI
conviction. State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 4 (1990). It may, however, be used "to
establish repeat-offender status under DWI laws." Ibid.
Our Supreme Court has held that an uncounseled DWI conviction, where
defendant did not waive counsel, may not form the basis for enhanced DWI
incarceration. State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351, 354 (2004) (reaffirming its holding
in Laurick and "revers[ing] and remand[ing] for a determination of whether
defendant's first DWI conviction was uncounseled, and if so, the maximum jail
2 Defendant offers no evidence that he was not advised of his right to counsel prior to his first DWI conviction. A-1788-17T4 5 sentence that may be imposed shall not exceed the maximum jail sentence
permitted for a second-time DWI offender").
The Court's decision in Hrycak applies to multiple DWI convictions under
the motor vehicle statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4–50, not the criminal statute at issue here,
N.J.S.A. 2C:40–26(b). State v. Sylvester, 437 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (2014). We
recently held that where a defendant vacated a prior DWI for lack of counsel as
a result of a successful petition for post-conviction relief, he was not guilty of
N.J.S.A. 2C:40–26(b) because he had only one remaining DWI conviction at the
time of the criminal trial. State v. Faison, 452 N.J. Super. 390, 395-96 (App.
Div. 2017), certif. denied, 233 N.J. 229 (2018). Here, without proof, defendant
claims his first DWI violated his Rodriguez right to counsel. Without
successfully procuring the vacation of his 1979 DWI conviction, defendant had
two prior DWI convictions at the time of his 2017 guilty plea and qualified for
the mandatory jail sentence imposed for driving while on the suspended list after
two DWI convictions.
II.
In Point II defendant argues that his qualification for lenient sentencing
under the step-down provision of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) rendered him a first-
time offender.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1788-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIE R. RAINS,
Defendant-Appellant. _______________________
Submitted May 8, 2019 – Decided May 23, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 16-12- 1226.
Jeffrey E. Snow, attorney for appellant.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Kayla Elizabeth Rowe, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Willie R. Raines appeals from his November 8, 2017
conviction after a June 5, 2017 order denied his motion to dismiss the indictment
against him alleging fourth-degree driving while suspended for a second offense
of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). Defendant pled
guilty and was sentenced to one year of probation, to terminate with the
expiration of his custodial sentence of 270 days in jail, 180 days without parole.
In support of his appeal, he repeats his arguments made to the trial court: (1) he
claims he was not afforded counsel for his first DWI conviction; (2) he was
sentenced as a first offender for his second DWI conviction; (3) the court failed
to advise defendant orally of the consequences of driving while on suspension
for his second DWI conviction; and (4) at the time of his first DWI conviction,
N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) and N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 were not yet effective. We reject
these arguments and affirm.
In October 1979, defendant was found guilty of DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50,
in Willingboro Township Municipal Court. Defendant claims he did not have
counsel. On May 19, 2016, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to his
second DWI. At the request of the State, the municipal court treated defendant's
second DWI as his first for sentencing purposes pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-
50(a)(3) because his second offense took place more than ten years after the
A-1788-17T4 2 first. The municipal court also relied on the State's two potential proof
problems: (1) the blood alcohol readings were .102 and .104, leaving open a
.005 differential pursuant to State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, (2008) and (2) a possible
problem with respect to changing the mouthpiece between the two readings.
On May 27, 2016, defendant was stopped for using his cell phone whil e
driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3. Defendant was issued a ticket for driving while his
license was revoked, N.J.S.A. 39:3-40. He was indicted for fourth-degree
operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or
subsequent DWI, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b).
On June 5, 2017, after oral argument, the trial court denied defendant's
motion to dismiss the indictment. The following day, defendant pled guilty to
the indictment, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his dismissal motion.1
Defendant, who was fifty-seven years old and had graduated high school,
explained that he drove due to an emergency. A pipe burst in his ill mother's
home, water was all over the floor, and he could not find anyone to give him a
ride to assist her.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
1 The judgment of conviction incorrectly states that defendant waived his right to appeal. See R. 3:9-3(d). A-1788-17T4 3 POINT I: THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO AN INCREASED PERIOD OF INCARCERATION AS A RESULT OF HIS PRIOR UNCOUNSELED DWI CONVICTION IN 1979. (THE LEGAL ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT HAS BEEN EXPANDED IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN STATE V. FAISON).
POINT II: DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO BE SENTENCED UNDER N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 AS OPPOSED TO N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) FOLLOWING HIS MAY 19, 2016 CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE SINCE HE WAS SENTENCED AS A FIRST OFFENDER PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3).
POINT III: ON MAY 19, 2016, THE COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING A SECOND (2ND) CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.
POINT IV: THE ENHANCED CRIMINAL STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED, AS WELL AS THE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED FOLLOWING A CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS ORIGINALLY CONVICTED IN 1979.
We review a trial court's decision denying a defendant's motion to dismiss
an indictment for an abuse of discretion. State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 55
A-1788-17T4 4 (2015). We do, however, decide legal issues such as those presented here de
novo. Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 330 (2010).
I.
Defendant argues in Point I that because his first DWI conviction dates
from 1979 and was uncounseled, 2 he should not have been sentenced to the
mandatory jail term required upon conviction of operating a motor vehicle while
on the suspended list for a second or subsequent DWI conviction.
Defendants charged with DWI are entitled to counsel. Rodriguez v.
Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281, 285 (1971). A prior uncounseled DWI conviction may
not be used to increase a defendant's custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI
conviction. State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 4 (1990). It may, however, be used "to
establish repeat-offender status under DWI laws." Ibid.
Our Supreme Court has held that an uncounseled DWI conviction, where
defendant did not waive counsel, may not form the basis for enhanced DWI
incarceration. State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351, 354 (2004) (reaffirming its holding
in Laurick and "revers[ing] and remand[ing] for a determination of whether
defendant's first DWI conviction was uncounseled, and if so, the maximum jail
2 Defendant offers no evidence that he was not advised of his right to counsel prior to his first DWI conviction. A-1788-17T4 5 sentence that may be imposed shall not exceed the maximum jail sentence
permitted for a second-time DWI offender").
The Court's decision in Hrycak applies to multiple DWI convictions under
the motor vehicle statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4–50, not the criminal statute at issue here,
N.J.S.A. 2C:40–26(b). State v. Sylvester, 437 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (2014). We
recently held that where a defendant vacated a prior DWI for lack of counsel as
a result of a successful petition for post-conviction relief, he was not guilty of
N.J.S.A. 2C:40–26(b) because he had only one remaining DWI conviction at the
time of the criminal trial. State v. Faison, 452 N.J. Super. 390, 395-96 (App.
Div. 2017), certif. denied, 233 N.J. 229 (2018). Here, without proof, defendant
claims his first DWI violated his Rodriguez right to counsel. Without
successfully procuring the vacation of his 1979 DWI conviction, defendant had
two prior DWI convictions at the time of his 2017 guilty plea and qualified for
the mandatory jail sentence imposed for driving while on the suspended list after
two DWI convictions.
II.
In Point II defendant argues that his qualification for lenient sentencing
under the step-down provision of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) rendered him a first-
time offender. Defendant maintains that he could not be guilty under N.J.S.A.
A-1788-17T4 6 2C:40-26(b) because that statute applies only to second or subsequent DWI
offenders. Defendant's argument is contrary to the unambiguous language of
N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) and creates a false connection between that statute and
N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b).
A person is guilty under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) of fourth-degree operating
a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension "if the actor's license was
suspended or revoked for a second or subsequent violation of" motor vehicle
statute N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) provides that "if the second
offense occurs more than [ten] years after the first offense, the court shall treat the
second conviction as a first offense for sentencing purposes . . . ."
"It is well settled that the goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain
and effectuate the Legislature's intent." In re Estate of Fisher, 443 N.J. Super.
180, 190 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting State v. Olivero, 221 N.J. 632, 639 (2015)).
"Our analysis of a statute begins with its plain language, giving the words their
ordinary meaning and significance." Ibid.
N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) unambiguously states that the leniency in
sentencing afforded a second-time DWI offender under the step-down provision
is "for sentencing purposes" only, and that the second DWI is considered as a
"second offense" and a "second conviction." Ibid. The step-down provision
A-1788-17T4 7 does not reduce the number of DWIs defendant committed. See State v. Revie,
220 N.J. 126, 139 (2014) (observing that the step-down provision of N.J.S.A.
39:4-50(a)(3) affects the imposition of a custodial sentence under the DWI
motor vehicle statute, not the number of convictions for administrative
penalties).
Even though he was sentenced as a first offender under the motor vehicle
provisions, the 2016 DWI conviction clearly and unambiguously constituted
defendant's second DWI conviction. During the period of license suspension
following this second conviction, defendant drove. He was thus properly
convicted under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b).
III.
Defendant argues that the municipal court failed to follow N.J.S.A. 39:4-
50(3)(c) by not orally notifying him "of what charge(s) he would face if he chose
to drive" after his second DWI conviction on May 19, 2016. Defendant
maintains that the only notice he received was the "ambiguous" notice contained
in the notification of penalties form, "that each [d]efendant is asked to sign, not
necessarily read, following their conviction for driving while under the
influence of alcohol."
A-1788-17T4 8 By signing the notification of penalties form, defendant confirmed that he
was put on notice of the consequences for driving with a suspended license, and
whether defendant was orally informed by the municipal court is irrelevant , nor
is ignorance of the penalties a defense to criminal behavior.
IV.
Defendant argues in Point IV that because the enhancement provision
under motor vehicle statute N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 and criminal statute N.J.S.A.
2C:40-26(b) did not become effective until after his first DWI conviction in
1979, his conviction under the criminal statute should be reversed. Despite the
fact that a second DWI conviction is a prerequisite to the mandatory 180-day
incarceration period, "[d]efendant is not being punished under N.J.S.A. 2C:40 -
26(b) for his prior DWI . . . offense[]; he is being punished for driving without
a license. . . ." State v. Carrigan, 428 N.J. Super. 609, 624 (App. Div. 2012). In
Carrigan, we determined that N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) applies to recidivist DWI
offenders driving during a period of license suspension irrespective of whether
or not the DWI offenses occurred before the effective date of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-
26(b). Id. at 613. Defendant's arguments are without merit and we therefore
affirm.
Affirmed.
A-1788-17T4 9