State v. Alvarado

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Alvarado

240 A.2d 677, 51 N.J. 375, 1968 N.J. LEXIS 173

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 1, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 240 A.2d 677 (State v. Alvarado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Alvarado, 240 A.2d 677, 51 N.J. 375, 1968 N.J. LEXIS 173 (N.J. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Defendant applied for resentence within the 60-day period specified in R. R. 3:7-13. His application was denied because the trial court was unable to dispose of the matter within that time limitation. The Appellate Division reversed the order. State v. Alvarado, 95 N. J. Super. 595 (1967). One judge of that court having dissented, this appeal to us was prosecuted as of right. R. R. 1:2-l(b).

We affirm for the reasons given in the majority opinion but add that when, as here, the offense is below the grade of crime, it rests in the discretion of the court, be it the municipal court or the County Court on a trial de novo, to decide whether to call for a presentence report. See R. R. 8:7—8 (a). The mandated requirement for a presentence report, R. R. 3 :7-10(b), applies to crimes, and does so whether the prosecution is in the Superior or County Court or is in the municipal court on a waiver and request to be tried in that court under N. J. S. A. 2A:8-22. See R. R. 3:1—1 and 3 :l-3.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Fbaítcis, Hall and Schettino—5.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Defendant applied for resentence within the 60-day period specified in R. R. 3:7-13. His application was denied because the trial court was unable to dispose of the matter within that time limitation. The Appellate Division reversed the order. State v. Alvarado, 95 N. J. Super. 595 (1967). One judge of that court having dissented, this appeal to us was prosecuted as of right. R. R. 1:2-l(b).

We affirm for the reasons given in the majority opinion but add that when, as here, the offense is below the grade of crime, it rests in the discretion of the court, be it the municipal court or the County Court on a trial de novo, to decide whether to call for a presentence report. See R. R. 8:7—8 (a). The mandated requirement for a presentence report, R. R. 3 :7-10(b), applies to crimes, and does so whether the prosecution is in the Superior or County Court or is in the municipal court on a waiver and request to be tried in that court under N. J. S. A. 2A:8-22. See R. R. 3:1—1 and 3 :l-3.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Fbaítcis, Hall and Schettino—5.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.2d 677, 51 N.J. 375, 1968 N.J. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alvarado-nj-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack