The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a criminal conviction because the defendant was denied his right to counsel

We are satisfied defendant was denied his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution. Under these circumstances, our only recourse is to reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Although there are a number of factors that contributed to this outcome, the constitutional violation begins with the Criminal Division Manager’s denial of defendant’s application seeking representation by the Public Defender’s Office. We will thus briefly summarize how this process should function.

…the record shows defendant appeared at his arraignment without counsel. When defendant informed the judge that the Criminal Division Manager had denied his 5A application [for appointed counsel] , the judge did not investigate the matter further. The record shows the judge believed himself bound by the Criminal Division Manager’s decision. This threshold error set the stage for how the judge proceeded from this point forward.

The record strongly suggests defendant’s financial status was not properly documented in the first 5A. This error could have been discovered, either at the arraignment or shortly thereafter, had the judge assigned counsel to represent defendant as Rule 3:4-2(b) now provides. Defendant’s second 5A was supported by substantial documentary evidence. However, this application was also rejected without explanation. The Criminal Division Manager inexplicably approved defendant’s third attempt to be represented by the Public Defender’s Office, based on the same information he submitted with the second 5A form. By that time, a jury had convicted defendant on all of the six remaining charges in the indictment.

Here, the record does not indicate defendant ever sought to waive his constitutional right to counsel. Defendant’s repeated attempts to qualify for representation by the Public Defender’s Office were indisputable proof that he wanted legal representation. This case represents the polar opposite of King. Here, the judge was not overly protective. Here, the judge failed to take the measures required under both the PDA and the United States and New Jersey Constitutions to ensure defendant’s right to counsel was not denied by administrative oversight.