862.225.1965
New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – New Jersey DWI Appeal
On August 11, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided State of New Jersey v. Victor Baverov, 482 N.J. Super 344 (App. Div. 2025), a significant New Jersey DWI appeal that upheld a DWI conviction. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the constitutional right to a jury trial in DWI cases.
Facts and Procedural History in the New Jersey DWI Appeal
On November 19, 2021, shortly before 11:00 p.m., a New Jersey State Trooper responded to a single-vehicle accident in Upper Freehold. The defendant, Victor Baverov, was found beside his car, which had struck a tree. He showed signs of alcohol impairment—bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol. He admitted to drinking five or six beers that night and failed several field sobriety tests. After being arrested and Mirandized, he again admitted to drinking and provided Alcotest breath samples. He was charged with DWI, reckless driving, and failure to maintain lane.
Before the municipal trial, defendant requested that his attorney present a psychiatric defense based on “persecutory paranoia” and amnesia unrelated to alcohol consumption. He claimed he could not recall the accident and had no memory of consuming alcohol on the night in question. However, without an expert witness and based on the holding in State v. Inglis, 304 N.J. Super. 207 (Law Div. 1997), defense counsel determined that psychiatric defenses were inadmissible in DWI cases due to the strict-liability nature of the offense. The municipal court convicted defendant of DWI, dismissed the other charges, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail, an eight-year license suspension, four years of ignition interlock, and mandatory fines.
Law Division Review of the New Jersey DWI Appeal
On appeal to the Law Division, Judge Michael A. Guadagno, J.A.D. (Ret.), conducted a de novo review and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The judge rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument, holding that even if the psychiatric defense had been presented, there was no resulting prejudice because the defense was without merit as a matter of law. The judge stressed that the insanity defense and other affirmative defenses under the Criminal Code are not applicable to motor-vehicle violations such as DWI, relying on State v. Federico, 414 N.J. Super. 321, 326-27 (App. Div. 2010). Further, even if such a defense had been introduced, it would not have changed the result given the strong evidence of intoxication. Defendant appealed.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Argument in the New Jersey DWI Appeal
On appeal, defendant Baverov claimed claim that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to present an insanity or psychiatric defense. He maintained that these conditions would have undermined the State’s ability to prove impairment under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Applying the two-pronged Strickland/Fritz test, the Appellate Division found that trial counsel had acted reasonably and ethically in refusing to advance a legally barred defense. Because defendant could not prove deficient performance by his counsel, the appellate court did not need to evaluate the second prong, prejudice, although it emphasized the overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction.
Right to Jury Trial Argument in the New Jersey DWI Appeal
Defendant also argued that his penalties entitled him to a jury trial under the federal and state constitutions. He urged the appellate court to treat his DWI as a “serious” offense due to the severity of penalties. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, citing Blanton v. N. Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), State v. Hamm, 121 N.J. 109 (1990), and State v. Denselbeck, 225 N.J. 103, 106 (2016), holding that there is no right to a jury trial for a single petty offense punishable by no more than six months in jail. Ancillary penalties, however severe, do not alter that classification.
Conclusion – Key Takeaways from the New Jersey DWI Appeal
The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s decision, leaving intact the municipal court’s DWI conviction and sentence. This decision reinforces three principles: psychiatric defenses are unavailable for DWI prosecutions in New Jersey; trial counsel can ethically decline to pursue legally barred defenses; and defendants charged with petty offenses carrying a maximum six-month sentence are not entitled to a jury trial, regardless of additional penalties.
Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.
No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey