State v. Heitzman
N.J.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026State of New Jersey v. B.C.L. N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2024State of New Jersey v. Christian D. Perez N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2024State of New Jersey v. Michele A. Seegars N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2022STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DYLAN E. BARBIERI (13-06-0576, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2020STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WALNER SAMEDY (12-06-1036, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2020STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VAN E. HUNTER (12-03-0320, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2019State Of Washington v. James Edward Elliott Wash. Ct. App.
- 2019STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM PINEIDO-AGUILAR (99-05-0445, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2018STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NANCY NUNEZ (98-10-1280 AND 99-02-0148, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2016State v. Ellison N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM C. HEITZMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Attorneys
- Robert A. Farkas argued the cause for appellant (Marinari & Farkas, attorneys).
- Linda K. Calloway, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (W. Cary Edwards, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Gerard Boruch, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
In 1985 defendant, then a biologist with the Department of Environmental Protection, pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to two-years probation, with 180 days County Jail time as a condition thereof. The Appellate Division, one judge dissenting, affirmed. It rejected defendant’s contentions that (1) there was no factual basis for the plea, and (2) the court should have forewarned defendant of his potential loss of public employment. State v. Heitzman, 209 N.J.Super. 617 (1986).
A statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, mandates the forfeiture of public office or position of any person convicted of a crime of the third degree or above. Defendant argues that forfeiture of public employment is one of the “consequences of the plea” that the Court had a duty to determine was within defendant’s understanding when the plea was accepted. See R. 3:9-2. The dissenter below accepted that contention.
We affirm substantially on the basis of the majority opinion in the Appellate Division, which held that “defendant need be informed only of the penal consequences of his plea and not the collateral consequences, such as loss of public or private employment, effect on immigration status, voting rights, possible auto license suspension, possible dishonorable discharge from the military, or anything else.” 209 N.J.Super. at 622. Of course, a trial court would be well advised to inform a defendant of any collateral consequences of which the court may be aware, but the failure to do so cannot be viewed as error requiring further proceedings that could lead to a vacating of the plea.
Affirmed.
Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and GARIBALDI join in this opinion.
Justices O’HERN and STEIN have filed a separate concurring opinion.
Chief Justice WILENTZ has filed a separate dissenting opinion.