five-year bar in New Jersey

2025We reject defendant's argument that the relaxed standard for the five-year bar and excusable neglect set forth in State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990), should apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

2018A PCR petition filed in the municipal court, other than one to correct an illegal sentence, "shall not be accepted for filing more than five years after entry of the judgment or imposition of sentence sought to be attacked, unless it alleges 3 We reject defendant's additional argument that the relaxed standard for the five-year bar and excusable neglect set forth in State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990), should apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

2013A.B., supra, 407 N.J.Super. at 349-50 [ 971 A.2d 403 ].

2011A.B., supra, 407 N.J.Super. at 349-50 , 971 A.2d 403 .

2009Although not necessary to the disposition of this appeal from the imposition of points for Patel’s fourth violation, the Appellate Division opinion further expressed approval of the MVC’s interpretation that the statute’s five-year exception was inapplicable to “third” offenses, and that it may only apply to a “subsequent ” offense, which the panel treated as a term of art in subsection e. Patel, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 377-78 , 958 A.2d 481 .

2009Although not necessary to the disposition of this appeal from the imposition of points for Patel’s fourth violation, the Appellate Division opinion further expressed approval of the MVC’s interpretation that the statute’s five-year exception was inapplicable to “third” offenses, and that it may only apply to a “subsequent ” offense, which the panel treated as a term of art in subsection e. Patel, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 377-78 , 958 A.2d 481 .

1992In State v. Hale, 116 N.J.Super. 106 , 281 A.2d 106 (Law Div.1971), the trial court’s failure to give the defendant a sanity hearing where the record indicated that the defendant might well have been insane when he committed his crime raised an issue of “fundamental injustice” that justified relaxing the five-year bar.

1992In State v. Hale, 116 N.J.Super. 106 , 281 A.2d 106 (Law Div.1971), the trial court’s failure to give the defendant a sanity hearing where the record indicated that the defendant might well have been insane when he committed his crime raised an issue of “fundamental injustice” that justified relaxing the five-year bar.

2025Since the delay prejudiced the State due to loss of evidence and memory erosion of relevant witnesses, McQuaid 147 N.J. at 485 , achieving "justice" by allowing PCR would be A-3057-22 12 "more an illusory temptation than a plausibly attainable goal." Ibid.

2025Since the delay prejudiced the State due to loss of evidence and memory erosion of relevant witnesses, McQuaid 147 N.J. at 485 , achieving "justice" by allowing PCR would be A-3057-22 12 "more an illusory temptation than a plausibly attainable goal." Ibid.

2024Defendant contended "that oral argument was required on his initial PCR application" and "that the [judge] erred in finding no excusable neglect in order to toll the five-year bar." In a written opinion, the PCR court noted "there [wa]s a strong presumption in favor of oral argument in connection with an initial petition for" PCR, citing State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 , 283 (2012).

2024In assessing whether a defendant has demonstrated excusable neglect, a court must weigh "'the extent of the delay,'" "the purposes advanced by the five-year rule," "the nature of defendant's claim[,] and the potential harm presumed or realized" by defendant, State v. Murray, 162 N.J. 240, 251 (2000) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 580 (1992)), as well as the "cause of the delay, the prejudice to the State, and the importance of the [defendant's] claim in determining whether there has been an 'injustice' sufficient to relax the time limits," Norman, 405 N.J.

2022Super. 113, 125, 127 (Law Div. 2016), aff'd o.b., 455 N.J.

2018In addition, we decline to address defendant's additional argument that because he was not advised of his right to appeal and the applicable time frame, the five-year bar should be relaxed under State v. Martin, 335 N.J.

2013Id. at 251, 23 A.3d 451 ; N.J.S.A. 30:4J-9e.

1992In State v. Marshall, 244 N.J.Super. 60 , 581 A.2d 538 (Law Div.1990), the Law Division emphasized that substantial constitutional questions will overcome potential procedural bars, such as the five-year rule, to a petition for post-conviction relief.

1992In State v. Marshall, 244 N.J.Super. 60 , 581 A.2d 538 (Law Div.1990), the Law Division emphasized that substantial constitutional questions will overcome potential procedural bars, such as the five-year rule, to a petition for post-conviction relief.

1974Cir.1970) as to a two-year residence requirement for admission to tenancy in public housing, and in King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F. 2d 646 (2d Cir.1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 863 , 92 S.Ct. 113 , 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971), as to a similar five-year requirement.

1974Cir.1970) as to a two-year residence requirement for admission to tenancy in public housing, and in King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F. 2d 646 (2d Cir.1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 863 , 92 S.Ct. 113 , 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971), as to a similar five-year requirement.

1974Cir.1970) as to a two-year residence requirement for admission to tenancy in public housing, and in King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F. 2d 646 (2d Cir.1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 863 , 92 S.Ct. 113 , 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971), as to a similar five-year requirement.

1974Cir.1970) as to a two-year residence requirement for admission to tenancy in public housing, and in King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F. 2d 646 (2d Cir.1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 863 , 92 S.Ct. 113 , 30 L.Ed.2d 107 (1971), as to a similar five-year requirement.