1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESUS E. REYES-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. A-3169-23
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
January 14, 2025
Robin Kay Lord (Law Offices of Robin Kay Lord, LLC) argued the cause for appellant.
Monica do Outeiro, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Raymond S. Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor attorney; Monica do Outeiro, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Mayer, Rose and Puglisi.
OPINION
ROSE J.A.D.
In this interlocutory appeal, we consider the propriety of a bench warrant issued by the Law Division following defendant Jesus E. Reyes-Rodriguez's failure to appear in person for a pretrial conference, notwithstanding his virtual appearance at this conference and nearly all prior court hearings. A non-citizen of the United States and Mexican national defendant was deported to his homeland after he was indicted for third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b).[1] The motion court issued the bench warrant, at the State's request, to serve as a detainer should defendant illegally reenter the United States or if the State elected to extradite defendant from Mexico. The State, however, acknowledged the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office (MCPO) was unlikely to authorize extradition on these third- and fourth-degree charges.
Before the motion court, defendant moved to vacate the warrant and dismiss the indictment. Citing State v. Lopez-Carrera, 245 N.J. 596 (2021), defendant argued his failure to appear in person was not willful. Rather, defendant claimed his removal from the United States prevented his in-person appearance and, in any event, Rule 3:9-1 does not require a defendant's physical presence in court. Defendant also asserted the State could have sought from the federal government "deferred action to delay [his] deportation . . . or an administrative stay of removal. "Thus, the State's failure to request this relief from the federal authorities - or seek his extradition pursuant to our country's treaty with Mexico - warranted dismissal of the indictment as the State "forfeited its interest in the instant prosecution." Defendant also sought dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. In the alternative, defendant sought permission to appear at all court proceedings remotely from Mexico.
The motion court denied all requested relief. In a written statement of reasons accompanying a March 7, 2024 order, the court rejected defendant's reliance on Lopez-Carrera. The judge concluded state court judges are not authorized "to detain defendants to thwart their removal." Nor was the court persuaded the State was estopped from prosecuting the offenses charged in the indictment or required to extradite defendant on these charges. Citing an administrative order issued by our Supreme Court, Order: The Future of Court Operations - Updates to In-Person and Virtual Court Events (Oct. 27, 2022) [hereinafter Virtual Court Order], the court rejected defendant's alternate application to appear remotely at all future proceedings. The court reasoned it was not empowered to enforce a probationary or custodial sentence if defendant were convicted at trial or by guilty plea.
We thereafter denied defendant's motion for leave to appeal from the March 7, 2024 order. State v. Reyes-Rodriguez, No. AM-0386-23 (App. Div. Apr. 15, 2024). The Supreme Court granted defendant's ensuing motion for leave to appeal from our order, and summarily remanded the matter for our consideration on the merits. 257 N.J. 593 (2024).
Having considered the supplemental briefs and oral argument, we now conclude the motion court mistakenly exercised its discretion by refusing to permit defendant to appear remotely. We therefore reverse the March 7, 2024 order and remand for the court to permit defendant to participate remotely in all court hearings, including trial, as he remains unable to lawfully reenter the United States. In doing so, we reject defendant's arguments that the court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of prosecution and on speedy trial grounds. We therefore affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part, for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We summarize the pertinent facts and events from the limited record provided on appeal.[2] In February 2021, L.M.[3] reported to police that "sometime in July 2020," defendant placed his hand in her shorts and "touch[ed] the side of her vagina" in Red Bank. L.M. was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged offense.
Defendant was charged by complaint-warrant with third-degree child endangerment and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. At the time of his March 16, 2021 arrest, defendant was thirty-four years old with no prior criminal record. Accordingly, Pretrial Services recommended defendant's release on his own recognizance based on his public safety assessment (PSA) scores of "1" -the lowest rung of the six-level ladder - for risk of failure to appear and risk of new criminal activity. The State did not seek defendant's detention. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162-18(a)(1).
The next day, on March 17, 2021, the court released defendant on Level III pretrial monitoring.[4] That same day, defendant was detained by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and charged as removable for unlawful entry into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537.
On August 27, 2021, defendant was indicted on the present charges. In September 2021, an immigration judge ordered defendant removed to Mexico. In her written decision, the judge discredited defendant's testimony, finding his responses to questions about the present charges "evasive."
The same immigration judge later denied defendant's motions for a stay and to reopen the removal proceedings. The judge considered the submission of defendant's child's mother, who explained defendant "gets nervous when he speaks and sometimes confuses his speech," and correspondence from a healthcare facility confirming the child's mother contacted the facility about "their daughter's sadness and anxiety over [defendant]'s detention." But the judge determined defendant had not met the "heavy burden" of reopening his removal proceedings and concluded "[defendant]'s criminal charges constituted a significant part of [her] determination."
Defendant retained his present attorney in September 2021. In November 2021, defendant filed an emergent motion to revoke his pretrial release to prevent his removal. The State declined to join the motion, "request[] a detainer," or extend a plea offer to a disorderly persons offense. Shortly thereafter, defendant was deported to Mexico.
We glean from the record defendant appeared remotely for all but one scheduled court hearing, commencing with his arraignment on December 14, 2021. Defendant applied for pretrial intervention (PTI) in January 2022, but the State rejected his application. In July 2022, defendant appealed his PTI rejection to the Law Division.
Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, a bench warrant was issued for defendant's failure to appear at an unspecified conference. Apparently, that same day, defense counsel withdrew defendant's motion to revoke his release.
In December 2022, defendant refiled his PTI appeal; the State filed opposition; and on February 9, 2023 a second judge vacated the November 14, 2022 bench warrant. The judge's reasons for vacating the warrant are not reflected in the record.
In April 2023, the State again rejected defendant's PTI application. Defendant appealed to the Law Division. On July 28, 2023, a third judge denied defendant's PTI appeal.
On September 5, 2023, the present judge issued a bench warrant for defendant's failure to appear at a "Discretionary Conference." The warrant indicates defendant was deported to Mexico.
The following month, on October 4, 2023, defendant moved to vacate the bench warrant and dismiss the indictment. After initial briefing and oral argument, defendant filed a supplemental brief, which the court permitted "in the interests of justice." The court afforded the State until February 19, 2024 to file a responding brief, but the State declined to do so. The court's order and decision followed on March 7, 2024.
We first consider defendant's challenges to the court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Ordinarily, an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. See State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 55 (2015). "When the decision to dismiss relies on a purely legal question, however, we review that determination de novo." State v. Twiggs, 233 N.J. 513, 532 (2018). Defendant's renewed claims on this appeal invoke our de novo review.
We consider the dismissal of an indictment as "the last resort because the public interest, the rights of victims[,] and the integrity of the criminal justice system are at stake." State v. Williams, 441 N.J.Super. 266, 272 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting State v. Ruffin, 371 N.J.Super. 371, 384 (App. Div. 2004)). Thus, a trial court should not dismiss an indictment "except 'on the clearest and plainest ground.'" Ruffin, 371 N.J.Super. at 384 (quoting State v. Hogan, 336 N.J.Super. 319, 344 (App. Div. 2001)).
Defendant maintains the State's inactions warrant dismissal of the indictment. In particular, defendant faults the State for failing to: coordinate with immigration authorities...
