State v. Williams

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 22, 1984

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1984-05-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1985

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily modified to permit defendant to present appropriate defenses, including that of double jeopardy, at the resentencing hearing directed by the Appellate Division (see, for example, State v. Farr, 183 N.J. Super. 463 (App. Div. 1982)); and it is further ORDERED that, as a part of its consideration of this matter, the trial court shall determine what notice, if any, was given to defendant or his attorney regarding the State's intention to appeal and whether such notice complied with the requirements of R. 2:9-3(d). Jurisdiction is not retained. [ 97 N.J. 617 (1984)].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 203 N.J. Super. 513 - State v. Williams

Relies on 183 N.J. Super. 463 - State v. Farr

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-05-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily modified to permit defendant to present appropriate defenses, including that of double jeopardy, at the resentencing hearing directed by the Appellate Division (see, for example, State v. Farr, 183 N.J.Super. 463 (App.Div.1982)); and it is further

¶2ORDERED that, as a part of its consideration of this matter, the trial court shall determine what notice, if any, was given to defendant or his attorney regarding the State’s intention to appeal and whether such notice complied with the requirements of R. 2:9 — 3(d).

¶3Jurisdiction is not retained.