In 1990, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in State v Laurick, 120 NJ 1 (1990), that a defendant could not be subject to an enhanced custodial sentence as a multiple offender for a driving while intoxicated conviction (DWI), NJSA 39:4-50, if he was not told of his right to counsel in a prior DWI prosecution.

In State v Konecny, on April 5, 2022, the court held that an uncounseled DWI conviction, or conviction for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test (“refusal conviction”), NJSA 39:4-50.4(a), or a conviction for such offenses vacated on PCR, could not be used to enhance a custodial sentence under the Driving While Suspended (DWS) statute, NJSA 2C:40-26(b), “and that prior uncounseled convictions cannot be used as predicates to increase the loss of liberty for DWS”. At 3. Moreover, if the defendant receives post-conviction relief in the absence of counsel for a prior DWI or refusal conviction and he is not retried therefor, the “vacated conviction cannot be used as a predicate for a section 26(b) prosecution.” At 4. But because Konecny had counsel in the prior proceedings, he was not entitled to post conviction relief under Laurick in terms of use of the prior convictions because Laurick dealt only with defendants who did not have counsel in the prior proceedings and who were “not advised of their right to counsel during the DWI-related prosecutions.” At 4.