Successful DWI Post-Conviction Relief Motion
The Iler Law Firm recently represented a client who sought to have his guilty plea for a DUI conviction vacated (set aside) based on a claim that his prior attorney was ineffective. The client contacted our office and wanted to know whether he had any defenses to the DUI charge even though he had already pled guilty and had already started serving his sentence. We explained to him what we believed were potential meritorious defenses to his case. He told us that his former attorney never told him about any of those defenses. He told us that if he knew about those potential defenses, he would have never pled guilty, and instead, would have insisted on taking this case to trial. Following a consultation, the client decided, based on our recommendation, to file a motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We explained that if successful, this would not result in the charge being dismissed, but rather it would simply vacate his prior DUI conviction and restore the matter to the court's calendar and would allow him to proceed to trial. We advised the client that he has several potential defenses, including (1) the state’s failure to produce an operator’s card for the officer who performed the alcotest; (2) the state’s failure to produce the operator’s card for the officer who performed the solution change prior to Defendant’s breath test; (3) a possible technical defense in relation to the less than two minute lock-out between the control test and the first valid breath sample; and (4) the State’s failure to produce “data downloads”. See State v. Maricic, 417 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2010). The client insisted he wanted to take the case to trial and have the opportunity to assert these defenses at that time.
The Firm, on behalf of the client, wrote a brief to court arguing how the client's former attorney ineffectively represented the client and requested the client's guilty plea be vacated. On the day of the motion, we argued to the judge that fundamental fairness requires that an attorney evaluate all possible defenses to a criminal charge. We argued that the former attorney's failure to evaluate these defenses with the client was ineffective and the client was prejudiced as a result. The prejudice, we argued, was that the client insisted he would have gone to trial if he knew about the potential defenses to his client, which he never knew about until he came to our office.
After oral argument, the judge ruled in our client's favor. The client was very pleased because his driving privileges were restored that day and he now was able to take the matter to trial. If you feel that you have been given ineffective assistance of counsel by your prior attorney in a DUI or DWI matter, contact our office for a free consultation to see how we can help. You may be able to reopen your prior case, at which time you may be able to more properly defend your case. Life has few second chances, a motion for Post-Conviction Relief may be one of them.
