Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Gross
Citations: 225 N.J. Super. 28; 541 A.2d 714; 1988 N.J. Super. LEXIS 402
Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; May 18, 1988; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
The court, led by Judge Michels, addressed whether a New Jersey driver's license could be revoked under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c following a conviction for a vehicle-related offense, specifically N.J.S.A. 39:10-7, which pertains to possessing a vehicle with a removed vehicle identification number. Defendant Matthew M. Gross pleaded guilty to this offense as part of a plea agreement that recommended a two-year probation without community service and a $750 fine. However, the trial court also revoked his driver's license for six months, citing him as 'a dangerous person' and 'a persistent violator.' The court based its license revocation on N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c, which allows for the suspension or revocation of licenses for individuals convicted of crimes where a motor vehicle was used in the commission of the crime. Gross contended that this provision did not apply to his case because his offense did not involve using the vehicle in furtherance of criminal activity, but rather just possessing it. He argued that the revocation was a significant penalty not included in the plea agreement, warranting the vacation of his guilty plea and remand for further proceedings. The court noted that the legislative intent behind N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c was to revoke driving privileges when a vehicle was instrumental in committing a crime, not merely for Title 39 violations. It emphasized that the offense of possession did not involve using the vehicle to facilitate criminal activity, suggesting that the revocation of Gross's license under this statute was not appropriate given the nature of his offense. Title 39 has its own specific provisions for handling license revocations related to motor vehicle offenses. Title 39 includes due process requirements for the suspension of a driver’s license by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles. Specifically, violations of N.J.S.A. 39:10-7 incur penalties outlined in N.J.S.A. 39:10-24, while N.J.S.A. 39:5-30 allows for license suspension or revocation for any Title 39 violations, ensuring due process for defendants. The legislative intent indicates that Title 39 provides a comprehensive framework for license revocation, which does not fall under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c. Trial courts are not authorized to use N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c to revoke a driver’s license for offenses that already have established revocation procedures, as this would bypass the due process protections intended by the Legislature. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c allows for the revocation of driving privileges when a vehicle is used in committing a crime, not for standard motor vehicle offenses that inherently involve vehicle use. Since Title 39 violations do not constitute an underlying crime beyond the vehicle use itself, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2 c does not apply. Thus, the trial court lacked the authority to revoke the defendant’s driver’s license due to a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:10-7 involving a missing vehicle identification number. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed with the modification to vacate the revocation of the defendant’s driver’s license, and further issues raised do not need consideration.