Specializing in Appellate Litigation

Contact Us!
800.790.1550
  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s sentence, remanding for resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594 (2014).

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s conviction on the ground that the warrantless search and seizure did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s plain view or automobile exception standards.

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s convictions: “We agree that the following claims of error have merit: the admission of testimony regarding "suspected marijuana" seized from the trunk of the vehicle (Point IV); a police officer's testimony describing defendant's "lack of reaction" to being arrested and the prosecutor's comments regarding this testimony in summation (Point VI); and the trial court's exclusion of defendant from the courtroom during the final charge to the jury and denial of defendant's motion for a new trial on this ground (Point VIII). Accordingly, we reverse his convictions."

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    In a published decision, the appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s conviction for murder and related offenses “We consider whether defendants received a fair trial in light of the prosecutor's opening statement, which informed the jurors they would receive evidence from an individual who never testified. We cannot say – in light of the less than overwhelming evidence of guilt – that the prosecutor's imprudent comments, even if made in good faith, failed to prejudice defendants. We, thus, reverse and remand for a new trial."

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s conviction for murder and related offenses “We are satisfied that in precluding the jury from considering passion-provocation manslaughter, the court committed an error capable of producing an unjust result with respect to Whye's convictions for purposeful and knowing murder, as well as all of the remaining charges. Accordingly, a new trial is required."

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    Following Hegge & Confusione’s successful petition to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the defendant’s convictions on the ground that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right was violated: “We affirmed the new convictions and defendant's sentence. State v. Samuels, No. A-5785-08 (App. Div. Aug. 12, 2011). Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted defendant's second petition for certification and summarily remanded to this court for us to reconsider, in light of its recent decision in State v. King, 210 N.J. 2 (2012), defendant's claim that the trial court erroneously denied his right to self-representation. State v. Samuels, ___ N.J. ___ (2012). After considering the record in light of King and the parties' supplemental briefs on the issue, we conclude that reversal is required."

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court reversed the defendant's resisting arrest charge because of insufficient instructions to the jury.

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court reversed convictions for kidnapping and related crimes based on the State's violation of the speedy trial right provided by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court reversed the defendant's first-degree robbery conviction because of a fatal flaw in the jury charge at defendant's trial.

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court reversed the defendant's receiving stolen property conviction (and amended other convictions) for insufficient jury charges and other errors at defendant's trial.

  • DIRECT APPEAL

    The appeals court reversed the defendant's first-degree murder and related convictions because of the denial of defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him at trial and errors with the jury charge.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE HELPS PRESERVE $1.3 MILLION VERDICT FOR INJURED PLAINTIFF

    Hegge & Confusione helped persuade a New Jersey appeals court to affirm a $1.3 million verdict obtained by a woman severely injured in a commercial parking lot. The defendant appealed the verdict, arguing that the jury instructions were improper and that the defendant was precluded from asserting certain defenses. Hegge & Confusione helped persuade the appeals court to reject the defendant's claims of error and affirm the verdict for the plaintiff.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PARTNERS WITH OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL IN SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT RESULTING IN FAVORABLE SETTLE

    Hegge & Confusione partnered with a Texas law firm in the appeal of an order approving a class action lawsuit and a large award of attorneys' fees that, the appellant contended, exceeded the reasonable value of attorney services provided. After filing of briefs in support of the appeal, the parties reached a favorable settlement resolving the attorneys' fee issue contested on appeal.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE JUDGMENT AGAINST CLIENT ARISING FROM ALLEGED BREACH OF COMMERCIAL LEASE

    Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a bench trial judgment assessing damages against the client for alleged breach of a commercial lease and partnership agreement. The appeals panel agreed that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the client's right to abatement of the lease payments and establishment of breach of partnership duties by the defendant.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING TURNOVER OF BANK FUNDS

    Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a lower court order compelling turnover of several thousand dollars held in a client's bank account on the ground that the proofs presented to the lower court showed that a portion of the funds were not subject to seizure. The appeals court ordered remand for reconsideration of the issue of which portion of the seized funds were subject to turnover.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES COURT TO REINSTATE APPEAL PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION BY PRIOR APPELLATE LAWYER

    Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reinstate the appeal of a plaintiff which the court had dismissed months before for prior counsel's failure to file a brief and appendix. Despite the passage of time and prior dismissal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded the appeals court that the plaintiff's appeal was meritorious and that the prior dismissal, solely the fault of prior counsel, should not be visited upon the party. Following the court's reinstatement of the appeal, Hegge & Confusione filed a Brief and Appendix on the plaintiff's behalf arguing for relief on the merits.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES FORCED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in concluding that there existed genuine issues of fact regarding whether the parties reached a settlement agreement, requiring vacation of an order enforcing the settlement agreement and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES LAW DIVISION ORDER

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing a Law Division order denying the client’s motion to enforce litigant's rights and for counsel fees, relating to defendants' failure to comply with the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.

  • HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES TRIAL COURT ORDER IMPOSING SETTLEMENT TERMS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT

    Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reverse part of a trial court order imposing settlement terms upon the plaintiff to which she had not agreed. The plaintiff had asserted harassment and discrimination claims against her employer. A purported settlement was reached and memorialized in a one-page document signed by the plaintiff. The defendant, however, moved to compel the plaintiff to sign a 14-page "settlement agreement" containing several terms not reflected in the one-page memorandum that plaintiff had signed. The trial court compelled the plaintiff to execute the 14-page document. The appeals court reversed, however, agreeing with Hegge & Confusione that the plaintiff could not be compelled to sign a document containing terms that exceeded those to which plaintiff had actually agreed.

  • MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the denial of counsel to assist defendant with presenting his motion (remanding for assignment of counsel for defendant on the new trial motion).

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing denial of defendant’s PCR and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on whether his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging, at his sentencing, the failure to dismiss the charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and other traffic offenses.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief because defendant was not sufficiently advised of the consequences of the plea agreement.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief where the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief because the facts elicited at the plea hearing did not establish the required elements of first-degree robbery.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel on various grounds.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief for reconsideration of mens rea issues that may have impacted the guilty plea.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on exculpatory evidence raised by the post-conviction proofs.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to obtain a mental health expert to counter the State's charges.

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on trial counsel's failure to request a claim of right charge (and for entry of an amended judgment of conviction).

  • POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

    The appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded for determination of whether the defendant was denied effective post-conviction relief counsel in court below.

  • SUCCESS IN REVERSING THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTS ONE AND THREE

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing the dismissal of counts one and three of the plaintiff’s complaint and reinstating the client’s claims for conspiracy and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage.

  • THE APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH HEGGE & CONFUSIONE

    The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the alimony termination order and remanding for a plenary hearing, “which shall particularly focus upon the critical disputed factual issue of the frequency of the alleged cohabitation.”

  • VACATING THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE

    The Supreme Court agreed with Hegge & Confusione, reversed the trial and appellate court, and vacated the defendant’s sentence, remanding for resentencing. “In this case, the sentencing judge found a critical aggravating factor based on unfounded assumptions rather than evidence in the record. That unsupported factor was then used to justify not only a sentence at the higher end of the range, but also a parole disqualifier. In addition, the judge failed to articulate reasons to justify the sentence—in particular, how the aggravating and mitigating factors were qualitatively weighed in coming to the term of imprisonment for this first-time offender. The Appellate Division affirmed this flawed sentencing process. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, vacate the sentence, and remand for new sentencing proceedings.” State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 54 (2014).

  • Victory in the Supreme Court

    Hegge & Confusione has persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings limiting Hegge & Confusione’s client to equitable distribution of assets earned only during the parties’ brief, 14-month marriage. Hegge & Confusione persuaded the Supreme Court that the family court, as a court of equity, was required to evaluate the client’s equitable share of a $2.25 million deferred compensation bonus paid to the ex-husband in light of not just the formal marriage period but, also, the parties’ eight years of living and raising their daughter together preceding the formal marriage. Applying principles of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, “Aucoin-Thieme is entitled to a percentage of the portion of the closing bonus that Thieme earned during the parties' cohabitation," Justice Patterson said in a unanimous ruling for the Court.

  • VICTORY IN THE SUPREME COURT!

    In a hotly-contested appeal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to affirm a divided appeals court ruling vacating a jury verdict on the ground that the trial court had improperly forced upon the defendant an affirmative defense that the defendant, in fact, did not want to argue to the jury.

    Case Number: 1