State v. Diloreto

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Diloreto

    180 N.J. 264 (N.J. 2004)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that the warrantless seizure of an individual reported as "an endangered missing person" and found sitting in a car in an area frequented by individuals attempting to commit suicide, presented police with a duty to aid the defendant

    Decided June 28, 2004 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 362 N.J. Super. 600 (2003). CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, and WALLACE join in JUSTICE VERNIERO's opinion.

  2. State v. Giddings

    DOCKET NO. A-2180-11T4 (App. Div. Jun. 30, 2014)

    We found that argument "disingenuous," since the prosecutor never took exception to the defense counsel's statement on the record "that the court's refusal to enforce the plea agreement was one of the pretrial motions that would be appealed[, and] [t]he judge took particular note that the plea agreement reserved [the] defendant's right to appeal the pretrial motions." Ibid.; see State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J. Super. 600, 614 (App. Div. 2003) (choosing to consider the defendant's appeal from denial of his motion to suppress where the judge explained to the defendant that his right to appeal as to "those issues [was] still available" despite entry of a guilty plea), aff'd, 180 N.J. 264 (2004). We have applied Matos to other situations where the State essentially acquiesced to a defendant's clear statement on the record at the plea proceeding of an intention to pursue an appeal after pleading guilty.

  3. DiLoreto v. Cathel

    Civil Action No. 05-2347 (DMC) (D.N.J. Jul. 6, 2006)

    The Appellate Division remanded for resentencing on the NERA claim, but otherwise affirmed. State v. DiLoreto, 362 N.J. Super. 600 (App.Div. 2003). Petitioner appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which denied certification as to the consecutive sentence question, but which addressed and affirmed on the suppression issues.

  4. Petitions for Certification

    178 N.J. 252 (N.J. 2003)   Cited 20 times

    PETITIONS FOR CERTIFICATION 362 N.J. Super 600 829 A.2d 1123 355 N.J. Super. 283 810 A.2d 81 358 N.J. Super. 504 818 A.2d 443 Lower Court Title Date Disposition Citation New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.F.; B.A.F.

  5. State v. Scurry

    DOCKET NO. A-0377-18T1 (App. Div. Oct. 15, 2020)

    Gonzalez, 254 N.J. Super. at 304; see also State v. Matos, 273 N.J. Super. 6, 15 (App. Div. 1994) (considering merits of the defendant's argument on appeal, despite failure to strictly comply with the Rule, based, in part, on judge's comments at time of guilty plea and prosecutor's silence); State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J. Super. 600, 614 (App. Div. 2003) (considering merits of the defendant's appeal where the judge explained to the defendant at the time of his plea that his right to appeal as to "those issues [was] still available"), aff'd, 180 N.J. 264 (2004). We turn to the merits of defendant's argument.

  6. State v. Davila

    443 N.J. Super. 577 (App. Div. 2016)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that "if a pre-trial motion only affects a dismissed count, an appeal of that pre-trial motion presents a moot, non-justiciable question"

    Here, defense counsel's casual mention of “all of the motions” is insufficient; nor does a difficult-to-read handwritten list included in the plea form satisfy the requirement of judicial approval or constitute “on the record” acknowledgment of a particular motion. If a defendant reserves the right to appeal a motion and is successful on appeal, he or she has the right to withdraw the guilty plea and go to trial or renegotiate another plea.R. 3:9–3(f); State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J.Super. 600, 616, 829 A.2d 1123 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 252, 837 A.2d 1094 (2003), and aff'd, 180 N.J. 264, 850 A.2d 1226 (2004). We note, however, that defendants are not entitled to a negotiated plea offer.

  7. U.S. v. Dequasie

    373 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 2004)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that Leon exception was applicable where two informants told police in a face-to-face meeting that a family member, Lora, was being held captive at the defendant's residence, where the informants' only source of this information was Lora's sister Tiffany, who accompanied Lora to defendant's residence, and police did not independently corroborate the information provided by the informants

    While probable cause is a necessary predicate to the first search, we believe that the officers' conduct must be evaluated in the proper context. See State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J.Super. 600, 829 A.2d 1123, 1135 (App.Div.), certification denied, 178 N.J. 252, 837 A.2d 1094 (2003) ("The need to investigate a missing person's report does not flow from the concern about criminal wrongdoing or involve the search for evidence of a crime, and the police conduct must be evaluated in that context"). B.

  8. State v. Shiffermiller

    302 Neb. 245 (Neb. 2019)   Cited 22 times

    The rationale, as the Michigan Court of Appeals explained in People v. Hannaford , is that See, e.g., People v. Tobin , 219 Cal. App. 3d 634, 269 Cal.Rptr. 81 (1990) ; People v Hannaford , 167 Mich. App. 147, 421 N.W.2d 608 (1988) ; People v Otto , 91 Mich. App. 444, 284 N.W.2d 273 (1979) ; State v. Diloreto , 362 N.J. Super. 600, 829 A.2d 1123 (2003) ; Com. v. Rehmeyer , 349 Pa. Super. 176, 502 A.2d 1332 (1985) ; State v. Lombardi , 727 A.2d 670 (R.I. 1999) ; State v. Acrey , 148 Wash. 2d 738, 64 P.3d 594 (2003) ; State v. Kelsey C.R. , 243 Wis.2d 422, 626 N.W.2d 777 (2001).People v Hannaford, supra note 53, 167 Mich. App. at 152, 421 N.W.2d at 610.

  9. State v. Price

    DOCKET NO. A-4874-18T1 (App. Div. Jan. 28, 2021)

    In State v. Diloreto, we held that knowledge of a missing gun provided exigent circumstances to search a vehicle, notwithstanding the occupant's arrest. State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J. Super. 600, 627 (App. Div. 2003), aff'd, 180 N.J. 264 (2004). We noted that when a gun is missing, there is "a real danger" that it can fall into "malevolent, untrained, or immature hands."

  10. State v. Dunns

    DOCKET NO. A-0851-19T1 (App. Div. Mar. 9, 2020)

    Specifically, we noted that defendant had not yet decided whether he would exercise his right to withdraw from the first plea agreement after his successful appeal of the severance motion. See State v. Diloreto, 362 N.J. Super. 600, 616 (App. Div. 2003) (permitting a defendant to choose not to withdraw a guilty plea after succeeding on appeal from a conditional guilty plea). Our remand order directed the trial court to convene a hearing at which defendant would announce his decision whether to withdraw from the first plea agreement.