State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dudley Rue, Defendant-Respondent

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Rule 3:22-6(d), not RPC 3.1, governs the duties of post‑conviction relief counsel and that counsel's failure to advance all grounds insisted upon by the defendant requires a new PCR hearing with new counsel. The Court remanded for a first‑petition‑type PCR proceeding. Justice Verniero, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the disposition but urged adoption of an Anders‑type procedure to resolve the conflict between the two rules.