Case Title: New Jersey v. Patel

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the
Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.

                     State v. Charudutt J. Patel (A-13-18) (081069)

Argued April 23, 2019 -- August 7, 2019

ALBIN, J., writing for the Court.

       In State v. Laurick, the Court held that a defendant is not subject to an enhanced
custodial sentence for a second or subsequent driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction
if he was not advised of his right to counsel in an earlier DWI proceeding and entered an
uncounseled guilty plea or went to trial without counsel.  120 N.J. 1, 16-17 (1990). Here,
the Court considers the applicable standards for both indigent and non-indigent
defendants who seek relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a second or
subsequent DWI based on a claimed denial of notice of the right to counsel in an earlier
DWI case.

        In 2015, defendant Charudutt Patel was charged in two separate instances with
DWI. Patel had twice before been convicted of DWI. In 1994, he pled guilty to DWI in
the Piscataway Municipal Court. In 2010, Patel pled guilty to DWI in the North
Brunswick Municipal Court. Because of the passage of more than ten years between the
first and second convictions, Patel was sentenced as a first-time offender. See  N.J.S.A.
39:4-50(a). The two 2015 DWI charges exposed Patel to potential third and fourth DWI
convictions. Patel claimed that his 1994 conviction in the Piscataway Municipal Court
was uncounseled and therefore could not be used for custodial enhancement purposes
pursuant to Laurick. Thus, for Laurick purposes, Patel contended that he stood before the
court as a second-time offender, and he moved to bar the use of his allegedly uncounseled
1994 DWI guilty plea to enhance any custodial sentence in the pending DWI cases.

       In support of his Laurick motion, Patel filed two certifications averring that he was
indigent at the time of his 1994 DWI guilty plea, that he appeared in the Piscataway
Municipal Court without an attorney, and that the municipal court judge did not advise
him of his right to retain one. Patel did retain an attorney in 2010 to represent him on the
DWI charge in North Brunswick. In 2016, no documents remained in the Piscataway
Municipal Court to disprove Patel’s certifications.

       The court denied Patel’s Laurick motion. Patel filed a motion for reconsideration
and a third certification to clarify his earlier certifications. He asserted that in 1994, “the
Judge never advised me that I had a right to retain an attorney nor did he advise me that I
                                               1
had a right to an appointed attorney at no charge. Therefore, I simply pled guilty.” The
court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that in the absence of municipal court
records, Patel’s certifications were insufficient to prove that he was denied notice of his
right to counsel twenty-two years earlier and that, in any event, he should have filed his
Laurick motion in 2010 when he was charged with his second DWI in North Brunswick.

        The Law Division denied Patel’s appeal. He then pled guilty to the third DWI
incident, in exchange for which other charges, including the fourth DWI charge, were
dropped. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the Court granted Patel’s petition for
certification.  235 N.J. 337 (2018).

HELD: To secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI
conviction, a non-indigent defendant must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI
proceeding, (1) he was not advised or did not know of his right to counsel and (2) had he
known of his right to counsel, he would have retained a lawyer. A defendant contending
he was indigent must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding (1) he was
not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel, (2) he was entitled to the
appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b), and (3) had
he been properly informed of his rights, he would have accepted appointed counsel.
Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the proceeding, to secure relief from an
enhanced custodial sentence, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show
that the outcome would have been different had he been represented. The Court removes
the five-year limitation in Laurick petitions and amends Rule 7:10-2(g)(2), effective
immediately, to provide the following: “(2) Time Limitations. A petition seeking relief
under this Rule may be filed at any time.” Here, Patel’s unrebutted certifications
established that his 1994 plea was uncounseled, and he had no obligation to establish that
he would not have pled guilty or been convicted at trial had he been represented by
counsel. The Court therefore reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and
remands the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1. The right to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed to all defendants charged with
DWI. Knowledge of one’s right to counsel is indispensable to the exercise of that right.
For that reason, all municipal court judges must “inform the defendant of the right to
retain counsel or, if indigent, to have counsel assigned pursuant to [Rule 7:3-2(b)].” R.
7:3-2(a). The court also must ask the defendant “whether legal representation is desired”
and record the response “on the complaint.” Ibid. Because of the singular importance of
the right to counsel, the denial of counsel is deemed a structural defect in the framework
of the proceedings -- a defect that cannot be quantitatively assessed and therefore defies a
harmless error analysis. A defendant denied the right to counsel does not have to
establish prejudice on direct appeal; prejudice is presumed. (pp. 13-16)

2. In Laurick, the Court held that a prior uncounseled DWI conviction could “not be used
to increase a defendant’s loss of liberty,” but made clear that there was no impediment to
                                             2
the use of other collateral consequences of the uncounseled conviction, such as a period
of license suspension or financial penalties.  120 N.J. at 4. The Court set different
standards of proof for indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants who sought to bar the
use of the prior uncounseled DWI conviction for custodial sentence enhancement
purposes. See id. at 11. The non-indigent defendant must show, like indigent
defendants, a “lack of notice as well as the absence of knowledge of the right to be
represented by counsel of one’s choosing,” but must also show “that the lack of notice
otherwise affected the outcome.” Id. at 11, 17. The Court did not explain its reasons for
placing a higher burden on non-indigent defendants. In State v. Hrycak, the Court
“reaffirm[ed] [its] holding in Laurick that an uncounseled DWI conviction may not be
used to enhance the period of incarceration for a subsequent offense,” restated the
Laurick formula, and again set different standards for indigent and non-indigent
defendants as to whether prior uncounseled DWI convictions could be used for custodial
sentence enhancement purposes.  184 N.J. 351, 354, 362-63 (2005). (pp. 16-21)

3. In State v. Schadewald, the Appellate Division altered the tests for indigent and non-
indigent defendants challenging prior uncounseled DWI convictions articulated in
Laurick and Hrycak. See  400 N.J. Super. 350, 354-55 (App. Div. 2007). In that case, the
Appellate Division held that both indigent and non-indigent defendants must
“demonstrate that if they had been represented by counsel, they had a defense to the DWI
charge and the outcome would, in all likelihood, have been different.” Id. at 354. The
Appellate Division in this case followed the Schadewald paradigm. (pp. 21-22)

4. Schadewald treats equally two classes of similarly situated defendants. That being
said, Schadewald is in clear conflict with the holdings in both Laurick and Hrycak and
arguably imposes an unduly burdensome standard by requiring that indigent and non-
indigent defendants prove that the outcome would have been different had they been
represented by counsel. Denial of counsel -- here the denial of the opportunity to retain
counsel or secure appointed counsel -- is a structural defect in the proceedings, not
quantifiable by any traditional measurement and therefore not typically susceptible to a
harmless-error analysis. And when notice of the right to counsel is not given in DWI
cases, to obtain the special form of relief recognized in Laurick, neither indigent nor non-
indigent defendants should be required to establish that the outcome of the proceeding
would have been different had they been given the opportunity to retain counsel or secure
appointed counsel. (pp. 22-24)

5. The Court adopts the standards reprinted in the HELD paragraph above and notes that
the defendant has the burden of proving that his prior uncounseled DWI conviction was
based on the municipal court’s failure to advise him of his right to counsel. If municipal
courts retain the records mandated by New Jersey court rules and jurisprudence,
determining whether there was compliance with the notice requirements should not be
difficult. The defendant must secure the relevant documents to establish a violation of
the notice requirement. In the absence of documentary evidence or witnesses with a
                                             3
recollection, the defendant is in a position to do no more than file an affidavit averring
that he was not advised of his right to counsel and did not know that he could retain
counsel. The defendant who claims he was indigent at the time of the prior proceeding
should attest that he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel,
and was unable to afford an attorney. In future cases, he also should attach to his
affidavit or certification documents that would establish his indigence. (pp. 24-25)

6. In the present case, the Piscataway Municipal Court has indicated that no record
remains of whether Patel’s 1994 DWI guilty plea was uncounseled or whether Patel was
given notice of his right to counsel and, if indigent, the right to appointed counsel. Patel
filed three certifications in the Piscataway Municipal Court in support of his application
to bar the use of his 1994 DWI conviction to enhance his custodial term. Patel has made
clear in his certifications that had he been advised of his right to counsel, he would have
sought the assistance of counsel -- preferably appointed counsel -- and, if he had
resources, retained counsel. Patel’s assertions -- like those of the defendant in Laurick --
have gone unrebutted. See Laurick,  120 N.J. at 6. Patel has satisfied his burden of
showing that his prior uncounseled DWI conviction was caused by the municipal court’s
failure to advise him of his right to counsel. (pp. 26-27)

7. The current court rules provide that a petition for Laurick relief “shall not be accepted
for filing more than five years after entry of the judgment of conviction or imposition of
the sentence sought to be attacked, unless it alleges facts showing that the delay in filing
was due to defendant’s excusable neglect.” R. 7:10-2(g)(2); R. 7:10-2(b)(2). In the
present case, Patel submits that he sought relief from his prior uncounseled conviction at
the only time that it made sense to do so and that therefore any “delay” should be deemed
excusable. State v. Bringhurst,  401 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 2008), supports this point.
The Bringhurst court reasoned that because “a second or subsequent [DWI] conviction
may occur at any time in the future, it would be illogical to apply the Rule’s five-year
time limit mechanistically to deny all [Laurick] applications.” Id. at 433. That logic
accords with recommendations by the Municipal Court Practice Committee to allow a
Laurick petition to be filed at any time. The Court now adopts the language proposed by
the Committee and amends in part Rule 7:10-2(g), effective immediately, to provide:
              “(2) Time Limitations. A petition seeking relief under this
              Rule may be filed at any time.”
(pp. 27-31)

    The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is
REMANDED for further proceedings.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON,
FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s
opinion.
                                             4
       SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
             A-
13 September Term 2018
                        081069

                 State of New Jersey,

                 Plaintiff-Respondent,

                           v.

                  Charudutt J. Patel,

                 Defendant-Appellant.

          On certification to Superior Court,
                 Appellate Division.

       Argued                       Decided
    April 23, 2019                August 7, 2019

Victor A. Rotolo argued the cause for appellant (Rotolo
Karch Law, attorneys; Victor A. Rotolo, E. Carr Cornog,
III, William E. Reutelhuber, and Matthew R. Marotta, on
the briefs).

Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
cause for respondent (Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex
County Prosecutor, attorney; Patrick F. Galdieri, II, of
counsel and on the briefs).

Lila B. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Lila B.
Leonard, of counsel and on the brief).

                           1
              JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

      Every defendant charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI),  N.J.S.A.

39:4-50, is guaranteed the right to retain counsel or, if indigent, the right to

appointed counsel in municipal court.1 State v. Hrycak,  184 N.J. 351, 362

(2005). In a DWI case, the guiding hand of counsel is essential to safeguard

fundamental rights in our adversarial system of justice, such as the right to a

fair plea or trial proceeding.

      To ensure the efficient administration of justice in our municipal courts ,

judges are directed to “inform the defendant of the right to retain counsel or, if

indigent, to have counsel assigned.” R. 7:3-2(a); see also Hrycak,  184 N.J. at
 362. Judges are also required to ask the defendant “whether legal

representation is desired” and to have the response “recorded on the

complaint.” R. 7:3-2(a).

      Repeat DWI offenders are subject to enhanced custodial sentences,

license suspensions, and financial penalties. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2)-(3). We

held in State v. Laurick that a defendant is not subject to an enhanced custodial

sentence for a second or subsequent DWI conviction if he was not advised of

1
  “'Indigent defendant’ means a person who is entitled to be represented by a
municipal public defender . . . and does not have the present financial ability to
secure competent legal representation . . . .”  N.J.S.A. 2B:24-2.

                                         2
his right to counsel in an earlier DWI proceeding and entered an uncounseled

guilty plea or went to trial without counsel.  120 N.J. 1, 16-17 (1990). Under

this special form of relief, the defendant is not relieved of enhanced financial

and administrative penalties. Id. at 16.

      Since Laurick, our courts have struggled to establish clear standards for

both indigent and non-indigent defendants who seek relief from an enhanced

custodial sentence for a second or subsequent DWI based on a claimed denial

of notice of the right to counsel in an earlier DWI case. To receive this special

form of relief from an uncounseled prior DWI conviction, we have imposed

different standards on indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants. See Hrycak,

 184 N.J. at 363. Only uncounseled non-indigent defendants are required to

show that the outcome would have been different if counsel had been retained.

Ibid. We can find no justification for such an asymmetrical approach.

      The present case provides us with the opportunity to give clearer

guidance to indigent and non-indigent DWI defendants who face an enhanced

custodial sentence based on an earlier uncounseled DWI conviction. We now

hold that to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent

DWI conviction, a non-indigent defendant must establish that in the earlier

uncounseled DWI proceeding, (1) he was not advised or did not know of his

right to counsel and (2) had he known of his right to counsel, he would have

                                           3
retained a lawyer. A defendant contending he was indigent must establish

that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding (1) he was not advised and did

not know of his right to appointed counsel, (2) he was entitled to the

appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b),

and (3) had he been properly informed of his rights, he would have accepted

appointed counsel. Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the

proceeding, to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence, neither an

indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have

been different had he been represented.

                                       I.

                                       A.

      In 2015, defendant Charudutt Patel was charged in two separate

instances with DWI -- in Tewksbury Township in January and in Hillsborough

Township five months later. The assignment judge of the vicinage

consolidated both cases for disposition in the Tewksbury Municipal Court.

      Patel had twice before been convicted of DWI. In 1994, he pled guilty

to DWI in the Piscataway Municipal Court.2 As a consequence of his guilty

2
  According to a police report, a Piscataway Township patrol officer found
Patel asleep in his car with the engine running in a restaurant parking lot
located within 100 feet of a police department drunk-driving checkpoint. In
Patel’s car were two bags containing four beers. Patel was transported to
police headquarters, where a breathalyzer test was administered. Two tests

                                        4
plea, his license was suspended for six months, and he was fined $495. In

2010, Patel pled guilty to DWI in the North Brunswick Municipal Court.

Because of the passage of more than ten years between the first and second

convictions, Patel was sentenced as a first-time offender to serve twelve hours

at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and fined $764. See  N.J.S.A. 39:4-

50(a) (providing that, for sentencing purposes, a second DWI conviction is

treated as a first DWI conviction if more than ten years have passed between

the first and second offenses). Additionally, Patel received a three-month

license suspension.

      The two 2015 DWI charges exposed Patel to potential third and fourth

DWI convictions. For a third and subsequent DWI conviction, Patel faced a

180-day term of imprisonment, a ten-year license suspension, and significant

financial and administrative penalties. Patel claimed that his 1994 conviction

in the Piscataway Municipal Court was uncounseled and therefore could not be

used for custodial enhancement purposes pursuant to Laurick,  120 N.J. at 4

(holding that “a prior DWI conviction that was uncounseled in violation of

court policy may not be used to increase a defendant’s loss of liberty”). Thus,

revealed that Patel’s blood alcohol content (BAC) measured at .13 percent and
.12 percent.

                                       5
for Laurick purposes, Patel contended that he stood before the Tewksbury

Municipal Court as a second-time offender.

      In 2016, Patel filed a Laurick motion in the Piscataway Municipal Court

to bar the use of his allegedly uncounseled 1994 DWI guilty plea to enhance

any custodial sentence in the pending DWI cases in the Tewksbury Municipal

Court. See R. 7:10-2(g)(1) (“A post-conviction petition to obtain relief from

an enhanced custodial term based on a prior conviction shall be brought in the

court where the prior conviction was entered.”). In support of his Laurick

motion, Patel filed two certifications in which he made the following

averments. At the time of his 1994 DWI guilty plea, Patel was a twenty-eight-

year-old recent immigrant from India, having moved to the United States four

years earlier. He lived with his wife in an apartment, was unemployed, “and

had no money to . . . hire an attorney.” His wife paid the rent, and they “were

barely scraping by.” He appeared in the Piscataway Municipal Court without

an attorney, and the municipal court judge did not advise him of his right to

retain one. Patel did retain an attorney in 2010 to represent him on the DWI

charge in North Brunswick.

      In 2016, no documents remained in the Piscataway Municipal Court to

disprove Patel’s certifications. In a handwritten note, the municipal court

administrator advised that “[a]fter 15 years all DWI files are sent for

                                        6
destruction. No transcripts are available.” Through counsel, Patel asserted to

the present Piscataway Municipal Court judge that in 1994, without the advice

of counsel, he “just assumed that he had to plead guilty” to the DWI charge.

      The court denied Patel’s Laurick motion. In doing so, it explained that

not only had Patel failed to present a claim of innocence to the 1994 DWI

charge, but also that the State would suffer undue prejudice because of the age

of the case and the destruction of documents. The court added that there

remained several unknowns: whether Patel consulted with an attorney and

whether the 1994 municipal court judge advised him of his right to counsel.

      Patel filed a motion for reconsideration and a third certification to clarify

his earlier certifications. He asserted that in 1994, “the Judge never advised

me that I had a right to retain an attorney nor did he advise me that I had a

right to an appointed attorney at no charge. Therefore, I simply pled guilty.”

Patel added, “Had I known that I could have had an attorney appointed for me

at no charge I would have taken advantage of that option.”

      The court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating that in the

absence of municipal court records, Patel’s certifications were insufficient to

prove that he was denied notice of his right to counsel twenty-two years earlier

and that, in any event, he should have filed his Laurick motion in 2010 when

he was charged with his second DWI in North Brunswick.

                                        7
                                        B.

      Patel appealed to the Middlesex County, Law Division. In denying the

appeal, the court stated that Patel was not entitled to relief because his

certifications did not assert that he had a viable defense to the 1994 DWI

charge and because he did not establish that the outcome would have been

different if he had the benefit of counsel.

                                        C.

      In December 2016, Patel pled guilty in Tewksbury Municipal Court to

the Tewksbury DWI charge. The court sentenced Patel, as a third-time

offender, to 180 days in the county jail, suspended his license for ten years,

and imposed the requisite fines and administrative penalties. See  N.J.S.A.

39:4-50(a)(3). The remaining charges, including the Hillsborough DWI

charge, were dismissed. The court stayed the custodial portion of the sentence

pending Patel’s appeal.

                                        D.

      The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the Law Division

“correctly determined [that Patel] failed to sustain his burden of establishing

entitlement to Laurick relief.” The court held that Patel had the obligation of

“showing he had a defense to the DWI charge or in all likelihood the result

                                         8
would have been different if he had counsel for his 1994 DWI proceeding,”

citing State v. Schadewald,  400 N.J. Super. 350, 354-55 (App. Div. 2007). It

concluded that Patel’s certifications were “bereft of any evidence”

demonstrating “that the result of the 1994 DWI proceeding would have been

different if he had received proper notice of his right to counsel.” Having

rejected Patel’s appeal on that basis, the Appellate Division, relying on Rule

7:10-2(g)(2)’s five-year bar, declined to address “whether [Patel’s]

certifications [were] sufficient to establish he was indigent at the time of the

1994 DWI proceeding, or whether [Patel] sufficiently demonstrated excusable

neglect under Rule 7:10-2(b)(2) to permit the filing of his petition more than

sixteen years after the Rule’s five-year time limit.”

                                        E.

      We granted Patel’s petition for certification.  235 N.J. 337 (2018). We

also granted the New Jersey Attorney General’s motion to participate as

amicus curiae.

                                        II.

                                        A.

      Patel contends that, under Laurick and Hrycak, a defendant challenging

an enhanced custodial sentence to a DWI conviction based on a prior

uncounseled DWI conviction, secured while he was indigent, need prove only

                                         9
that he was not given notice of his right to counsel and to the assignment of

counsel if unable to afford an attorney. He submits that an indigent defendant

is not required to establish that “he had a defense to the DWI charge, and that

the outcome would have in all likelihood been different,” citing Laurick and

Hrycak. Given the precedents of this Court, he argues that the decisions by the

Appellate Division and Law Division in this case, and the Appellate Division

decisions in Schadewald,  400 N.J. Super. at 354-55, and State v. Bringhurst,

 401 N.J. Super. 421, 435 (App. Div. 2008), are in error.

      Patel submits, moreover, that he had no reason to pursue a Laurick

petition in 2010 -- the time of his second DWI conviction -- because the

passage of more than ten years between his first and second DWI convictions

allowed him to be sentenced as a first-time offender. He also notes that by

2010, the Piscataway Municipal Court’s records had already been destroyed

pursuant to the judiciary’s retention policy. Last, he argues that the five-year

time bar of Rule 7:10-2(g)(2) -- a rule adopted in 2009 -- should not apply

retroactively to his uncounseled 1994 DWI conviction because Laurick,

decided in 1990, placed no time constraints on relief from an improper

sentence enhancement.

                                       B.

                                       10
      The State acknowledges that, under Laurick, the standard for obtaining

relief is less onerous for indigent defendants than non-indigent defendants

because the indigent defendant need only prove that he did not receive notice

of the right to assignment of counsel, he was not appointed assigned counsel,

and he did not waive the right to counsel, citing Hrycak,  184 N.J. at 363.

Nevertheless, the State maintains that Patel did not make a sufficient showing

to the Piscataway Municipal Court that he was indigent when he entered his

1994 guilty plea. The State points out that an “indigent defendant” entitled to

the representation by a municipal public defender is one who “does not have

the present financial ability to secure competent legal representation,” quoting

 N.J.S.A. 2B:24-2. According to the State, Patel’s claims of indigence were

“self-serving, unsubstantiated, and conclusory” because he did not submit

relevant financial documents, such as “tax returns, unemployment records, and

bank statements.”

      The State contends that the absence of adequate proof of indigence

required Patel to satisfy the additional burden of showing that “his 1994 guilty

plea wrought a miscarriage of justice,” and that he failed to do so. In the

State’s view, “[t]he police records demonstrate that even if [Patel] were

represented by counsel, he still would have been found guilty of DWI.”

                                       11
      Last, the State argues that Patel failed to demonstrate excusable neglect

or some other justifiable reason for relaxing the five-year time bar of Rules

7:10-2(g)(2) and (b)(2), and therefore he is foreclosed from attacking a twenty-

two-year-old municipal court conviction.

                                        C.

      Disagreeing with both Patel and the State, the Attorney General claims

that Laurick did not impose different requirements for relief for indigent and

non-indigent defendants. The Attorney General posits that Laurick

“recognized that both indigent and non-indigent defendants must show that the

lack of notice of their respective rights resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

(emphasis added). In the Attorney General’s view, relieving indigent

defendants but not non-indigent defendants of the requirement of showing a

miscarriage of justice “would deprive non-indigent defendants of equal

protection of the law, and would thus be untenable.” Otherwise, the Attorney

General concurs with the arguments advanced by the State that Patel is not

entitled to Laurick relief.

                                        III.

                                        A.

      The parties and courts in this case have varied interpretations of the

governing case law. We review issues of law de novo and owe no deference to

                                        12
the interpretive conclusions of either the Appellate Division or Law Division.

State v. Quaker Valley Farms, LLC,  235 N.J. 37, 55 (2018). Factual findings

made by the trial court are entitled to deference provided they are supported by

“sufficient credible evidence in the record.” Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242

Franklin Ave., LLC,  215 N.J. 242, 253 (2013) (quoting Brunson v. Affinity

Fed. Credit Union,  199 N.J. 381, 397 (2009)). Only when those findings are

“clearly mistaken” will we intervene in the interests of justice. State v. S.S.,

 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Gamble,  218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014)).

                                        B.

      The right to the assistance of counsel is guaranteed to all defendants

charged with DWI. State v. Stein,  225 N.J. 582, 594 (2016); R. 7:3-2(a).

Indigent defendants facing imprisonment or other consequences of magnitude

are also guaranteed the appointment of counsel without cost “as a matter of

simple justice.” Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt,  58 N.J. 281, 295 (1971); see also R.

7:3-2(b). We granted that right to indigent defendants through “the exercise of

[our] supervisory jurisdiction over procedures in New Jersey courts .” Laurick,

 120 N.J. at 8 (citing Rodriguez,  58 N.J. at 294); see also N.J. Const. art. VI, §

2, ¶ 3 (“The Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of

all courts in the State and, subject to the law, the practice and procedure in all

such courts.”). In doing so, we recognized that “considerations of fairness

                                        13
dictate that appropriate steps be taken to protect unrepresented indigent

defendants against injustices which may result from their inability to cope

fairly with municipal court charges against them.” Rodriguez,  58 N.J. at 294.

      Knowledge of one’s right to counsel is indispensable to the exercise of

that right. For that reason, all municipal court judges must “inform the

defendant of the right to retain counsel or, if indigent, to have counsel assigned

pursuant to [Rule 7:3-2(b)].” R. 7:3-2(a). The court also must ask the

defendant “whether legal representation is desired” and record the response

“on the complaint.” Ibid.

      The assistance of counsel is essential to a fair proceeding in our

adversarial system of justice. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez,