Post Conviction Relief Denied
Post 5084
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gE_vcQN6 and at https://lnkd.in/gAqQxqrn, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
A criminal defendant appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition and the request to disqualify the trial judge. In State Of New Jersey v. Robert D. Keith, a/k/a David R. Keith, No. A-1042-23, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (May 21, 2025) the Appellate Division denied Keith’s request for relief.
Background of the Case
Robert D. Keith, serving as a bookkeeper for RupCoe Heating and Plumbing, was indicted on multiple financial offenses, including money laundering and insurance fraud. He pleaded guilty to a first-degree charge of financial facilitation and a third-degree charge of insurance fraud, resulting in a recommended ten-year prison sentence for money laundering and four years for insurance fraud, to be served consecutively. The remaining charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
Sentencing Details
During sentencing, the trial judge considered the victim’s emotional impact statement and noted the defendant’s extensive criminal history, which included multiple convictions for similar offenses. The judge identified several aggravating factors such as the defendant’s persistent criminal behavior and the need for deterrence, while only one mitigating factor was acknowledged: the defendant’s promise to pay restitution. Ultimately, the judge sentenced Keith according to the plea agreement without analyzing specific statutory requirements for consecutive sentencing.
Appeal and Remand
The defendant appealed the sentence, raising issues regarding the consecutive nature of the sentences imposed. The appellate court suggested a remand for the trial court to clarify the reasons for consecutive sentencing and to ensure the victim impact statement was appropriately considered. On remand, the trial judge provided further justification for the consecutive sentences but did not conduct a new sentencing hearing, which the defendant argued was necessary.
Post-Conviction Relief
Following the remand, Keith filed for PCR, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural errors by the trial judge. The trial judge dismissed the PCR application, stating that the claims could have been raised on direct appeal and were thus procedurally barred. The judge also found that the victim impact statement was not overly prejudicial and did not divert attention from the sentencing factors.
Appeal of PCR Decision
On appeal, Keith contended that his counsel was ineffective for not requesting a full resentencing hearing and failing to address the victim impact statement’s content adequately. However, the appellate court upheld the trial judge’s decision, stating that the limited remand did not necessitate a complete resentencing and that the trial judge had followed the appellate court’s directives.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decisions, concluding that the sentencing was appropriate and that the claims raised by Keith did not warrant relief. The court emphasized that the trial judge had exercised discretion within the bounds of the law and that the procedural claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were not substantiated.
It is axiomatic that sentencing decisions are discretionary. Therefore, the appellate court reviews a sentence for an abuse of discretion and defers to the sentencing court’s factual findings and should not “second-guess” them. To facilitate meaningful appellate review, trial judges must explain how they arrived at a particular sentence. Trial judges have discretion to decide if sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.
In his written opinion following his oral decision, the trial judge ultimately concluded that the negotiated plea and sentence was fair. In light of the nature of the offenses, the elements necessary to establish each offense, and supported by the factual basis provided for each offense, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the crimes were separate and apart from one another, against separate victims, committed on separate dates, and in separate fashion.
Combining these observations with the trial court’s detailed analysis of the pertinent aggravating and mitigating factors and considering the specific facts of this case, the appellate court could discern no error in the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in concluding that the consecutive service of the sentences was proper and was fair.
Since Defendant did not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s purported error the result of the proceeding would have been different.
ZALMA OPINION
New Jersey allows a person, after being convicted of a crime or crimes, and sentenced to seek post conviction relief from the Appellate Division by claiming inadequacy of counsel or other grounds allowed by the statute. Keith’s attempt to reduce his sentence and appealed the finding of the trial court refusing PCR and although he was a successful fraudster for a while his attempts failed at the trial court and the Appellate Division.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
