Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM C. HEITZMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1987-07-09
Citations: 107 N.J. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM C. HEITZMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 603–609

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM C. HEITZMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued March 30, 1987
Decided July 9, 1987.
Robert A. Farkas argued the cause for appellant (Marinari & Farkas, attorneys).
Linda K. Calloway, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (W. Cary Edwards, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Gerard Boruch, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In 1985 defendant, then a biologist with the Department of Environmental Protection, pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to two-years probation, with 180 days County Jail time as a condition thereof. The Appellate Division, one judge dissenting, affirmed. It rejected defendant's contentions that (1) there was no factual basis for the plea, and (2) the court should have forewarned defendant of his potential loss of public employment. State v. Heitzman, 209 N.J.Super. 617 (1986).
A statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, mandates the forfeiture of public office or position of any person convicted of a crime of the third degree or above. Defendant argues that forfeiture of public employment is one of the "consequences of the plea" that the Court had a duty to determine was within defendant's understanding when the plea was accepted. See R. 3:9-2. The dissenter below accepted that contention.
We affirm substantially on the basis of the majority opinion in the Appellate Division, which held that "defendant need be informed only of the penal consequences of his plea and not the collateral consequences, such as loss of public or private employment, effect on immigration status, voting rights, possible auto license suspension, possible dishonorable discharge from the military, or anything else." 209 N.J.Super. at 622. Of course, a trial court would be well advised to inform a defendant of any collateral consequences of which the court may be aware, but the failure to do so cannot be viewed as error requiring further proceedings that could lead to a vacating of the plea.
Affirmed.
Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and GARIBALDI join in this opinion.
Justices O'HERN and STEIN have filed a separate concurring opinion.
Chief Justice WILENTZ has filed a separate dissenting opinion.