» Criminal

Hegge & Confusione Wins in New Jersey Supreme Court

Attorney Michael J. Confusione has persuaded the Supreme Court to vacate a murder conviction because of improper limitation on the cross-examination of a key State witness at trial, and violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Speaking for a unanimous Court in State v. David Bass, Justice Patterson agreed that the trial court violated defendant’s confrontation rights by precluding defendant from cross-examining the surviving victim and primary State witness about charges lodged against himself, and that the trial court further infringed defendant’s confrontation right by permitting an assistant medical examiner to relay out-of-court autopsy findings made by another, non-testifying examiner. These errors mandated vacation of the defendant’s murder conviction and remand for a new trial, the Court held. Results-Driven Appellate Lawyers Serving New Jersey If you have been convicted of a crime, think Hegge & Confusione to help you appeal your case. With our extensive history of case victories and positive client testimonials, we can provide the appellate advocacy you need to maximize your chances of securing a favorable outcome. To find out more about what our legal professionals can do for you, request an initial consultation. Read More

Criminal Convictions Vacated

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the lower court “failed to comply with the self-representation protocol mandated by” New Jersey law and noting, “As a predicate to that new trial, the assigned judge shall reconsider the discovery and trespass issues that have been presented more cogently by appellate counsel in his brief on appeal.” Read More

Remand for Resentencing

The Supreme Court agreed with Hegge & Confusione, reversed the trial and appellate court, and vacated the defendant’s sentence, remanding for resentencing. “In this case, the sentencing judge found a critical aggravating factor based on unfounded assumptions rather than evidence in the record. That unsupported factor was then used to justify not only a sentence at the higher end of the range, but also a parole disqualifier. In addition, the judge failed to articulate reasons to justify the sentence—in particular, how the aggravating and mitigating factors were qualitatively weighed in coming to the term of imprisonment for this first-time offender. The Appellate Division affirmed this flawed sentencing process. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, vacate the sentence, and remand for new sentencing proceedings.” State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 54 (2014). Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for determination of whether the defendant was denied effective post-conviction relief counsel in court below. Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel’s failure to request a claim of right charge (and for entry of an amended judgment of conviction). Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief for reconsideration of mens rea issues that may have impacted the guilty plea. Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief because the facts elicited at the plea hearing did not establish the required elements of first-degree robbery. Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief where the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief because defendant was not sufficiently advised of the consequences of the plea agreement. Read More

Post-Conviction Relief

The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing denial of defendant’s PCR and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on whether his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging, at his sentencing, the failure to dismiss the charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and other traffic offenses. Read More

Warning: Attempt to read property "rewrite" on null in /home/heggelawespresso/public_html/wp-content/themes/themodernfirm-framework/classes/directory.php on line 79

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/heggelawespresso/public_html/wp-content/themes/themodernfirm-framework/classes/directory.php on line 79