Drug Possession Charges In Superior Court Barred By Same Evidence Test

During an undercover drug operation, Rodney Miles was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(12)) as well as a petty disorderly persons offense of possession of under 50 grams of marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a). While lodged in the Camden County Jail, following indictment, the defendant appeared pro se, waiving his right to counsel, via video conference from the county jail and entered into a guilty plea for the disorderly persons offense of possession of under 50 grams of marijuana after it was downgraded to the offense of loitering to possess marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(b)(1)). During the colloquy during which the plea was entered, Miles attempted to obtain clarification with regard to the specific matter on which he was appearing, and whether charges would remain in the Superior Court following the plea. It was very apparent, from the responses offered by the judge, that the municipal court judge did not understand the questions asked by the defendant regarding his remaining charges. Thereafter, In State v. Miles, Miles sought dismissal of the charges pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County based on double jeopardy as he had entered a guilty plea to charges stemming from the same event. In State v. Salter, 425 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2012), the court interpreted the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, 11 of the New Jersey Constitution as protecting against a second prosecution following acquittal or conviction and multiple punishments for a single offense or set of events. In State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573 (1982), the court held the Constitutional protections to be applicable in the municipal court. Although the court held that fundamental fairness pursuant to the defendant's argument grounded on State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679 (1989) was not applicable, any subsequent prosecution in the Superior Court was barred under the same evidence test set forth in State v. Salter. The Court held that the municipal court plea resolved all charges stemming from the defendant's arrest. Drug charges can destroy your future and, if you have prior drug charges, you are subject to harsher sentences each time. If you are facing charges for drug possession or distribution you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances (CDS), distribution, possession, under the influence, paraphernalia or CDS in a motor vehicle visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Distribution Conviction Reversed For Detective's Improper Testimony

Brian Firman was charged with third-degree possession of cocaine (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); third-degree possession with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)) and 5(b)(3)); third-degree distribution (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) and 5(b)(3)); and third-degree distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7). The charges stemmed from a detectives observation of the defendant and 2 other men in what he believed to be a hand to hand drug transaction which, when he approached to speak to them, was terminated abruptly and one of the men was observed to throw something on the ground which proved to be crack cocaine. During the pat-down search that followed, there paraphernalia was located on the persons of the other 2 co-defendants but nothing in the report reflected possession on the part of Firman. At trial, Firman was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 6 years in prison. In State v. Firman, the defendant appealed on the basis that the detective, McDonald, a non-expert, offered testimony exceeding the level permitted from a fact witness through his ample opinions. The defendant failed to object at trial, leaving the NJ Appellate Division to review the matter under the plain error standard of State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91 (2013). Under the plain error standard, the Appellate Division would reverse in the event that the testimony of McDonald which crossed the line into expert testimony, which he was not qualified to offer, could have led the jury to a different result than it would have reached without the inappropriate testimony. State v. Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 2008). The N.J. Appellate Division determined that without the impermissible testimony of the detective, the jury could have reached a different result and that the guilty verdict must be reversed with the matter remanded for a new trial. If you are facing charges for drug distribution or possession, there are multiple components which may affect the ultimate outcome. Drug distribution charges are met with harsh penalties due to the public interest in deterrence and it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to protect you against the charges and penalties. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession and possession with intent to distribute visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Officer Unqualified To Give Opinion Allows Reversal Of Drug Convictions

Wasan Brockington was convicted of possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), possession with intent to distribute CDS, distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in a school zone and conspiracy. The drugs in question were cocaine and heroin. New Brunswick Police were conducting surveillance in a specific location. Sergeant Quick claimed to have witnessed several transactions wherein money was handed by third-parties to the co-defendant, Fitzpatrick, then the defendant would walk down a driveway with the third-party and they would both return within a minute and the third-party would walk off. Quick suspected these were drug transactions and even characterized each transaction as a heroin transaction or a cocaine transaction. However, he made no arrests, had no evidence to test and claimed to be at a substantial distance viewing the transactions through binoculars. At some point, officers closed in and saw Brockington throw down a newspaper with bags of suspected heroin inside and found 2 bags each of heroin and cocaine on the third-party suspected drug buyer leaving the scene. After police seized Brockington and the evidence, he advised that all of the drugs were his and that the co-defendant was innocent. In State v. Brockington, the defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement, to compel the disclosure of the officers’ surveillance point and other pre-trial motions but all were denied by trial judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. The defendant also objected to the inclusion of Sergeant Quick’s testimony regarding drug transactions he allegedly witnessed as his testimony was elicited by the prosecutor in a manner making him appear to be an expert on the subject of drugs and drug transactions when he offered that he could discern cocaine from heroin at a great distance but the court allowed it. At the conclusion of trial, no limiting instruction to the jury was requested. Brockington was sentenced to 10 years with a 5 year parole ineligibility period. Defendant appealed and the N.J. Appellate Division looked to N.J.R.E. 701as interpreted in the similar matters of State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) and United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1154, 128 S. Ct. 1100, 169 L. Ed.2d 831 (2008) wherein it was held that “a lay opinion must be the product of reasoning processes familiar to the average person in everyday life.” The Appellate Division found the opinion of Sergeant Quick to far exceed the established boundary of lay opinion testimony. The prosecutor also bolstered Quick’s testimony as credible and accurate which further prejudiced the defendant in violation of the strictures set forth in State v. Bradshaw, 195 N.J 493 (2008) and State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76 (1999). The Appellate Division then reviewed and compared a litany of cases to determine whether testimony about the other alleged transactions in which no arrests were made and from which no evidence was retrieved violated N.J.R.E. 404 (b) and determined it may be used as the probative value was not likely substantially outweighed by prejudice to the defendant. The matter was ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the likelihood of unfair prejudice toward Brockington. Penalties for drug distribution in NJ are severe and lasting, often including lengthy prison terms with significant parole ineligibility periods. If you have been charged with a drug offense an experienced criminal defense attorney can protect your rights. For more information about drug distribution, possession, possession with intent to distribute or controlled dangerous substances (CDS) visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

10 Year DUI Sentence Upheld Without Alcotest or Blood Sample

John Cumpston was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), driving while intoxicated (DWI) in a school zone (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(g)), driving while suspended (N.J.S.A. 39:3-40) reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96) and careless driving (39:4-97) after Tenafly police responding to an accident call found him in his Toyota Camry which he had driven into a telephone pole. There were no other occupants in the vehicle and a scrape on Cumpston's face was consistent with the airbag's deployment. Cumpston's speech was slurred, his breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, he had difficulty balancing when standing, his clothes were disheveled and he was without shoes, he admitted to consuming various alcoholic beverages prior to driving, he did not wake when his blood was drawn in the hospital and urinated on himself while sleeping in the hospital. In State v. Cumpston, the State stipulated to suppression of the blood test upon Defendant's motion but the court refused to suppress the Defendant's pre-arrest statements. At trial in the Tenafly Municipal Court, Judge Bell based the convictions for DUI, DWI within 1000 feet of a school zone, reckless driving and careless driving on the officers' testimony and the totality of the circumstances. The Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in the Bergen County jail and 10-year loss of license as a third time DUI offender with a concurrent 180 day sentence for DWI in a school zone and a 20-year loss of license on that charge. The Defendant was also ordered to addend the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) in association with the DUI and DWI in a school zone charges and fines totaling over $3,000 collectively on all convictions. On appeal before Judge Jerejian in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Cumpston sought to have his admissions at the scene of the crash, with regard to alcohol consumption, suppressed under claim that his Miranda rights were violated, sought to have the convictions reversed and for a reduction in his sentence. The State submitted that the conviction for DUI should merge into DWI in a school zone. Under State v. Kent, 391 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007) field sobriety tests are not required for a DWI conviction. Other proofs including "a defendant's demeanor and physical appearance- coupled with proofs as to the cause of intoxication - i.e., the smell of alcohol, and admission of the consumption of alcohol, or a lay opinion of alcohol intoxication." State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574, 589 (2006). As to the Defendant's statements at the scene, New Jersey has long held that Miranda warnings are not required prior to field sobriety testing. State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005); State v. Green, 209 N.J. Super. 347, 350 (App. Div. 1986); State v. Weber, 220 N.J. Super. 420, 424 (App. Div. 1987). Further, in Berkemer v. McCarthy, 467 U.S. 420, 442 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that basic on scene questioning and field sobriety tests do not give rise to a "formal arrest" requiring Miranda warnings. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, did agree that the Defendant's sentence should be modified to merge the DUI into the DWI in a school zone as well as the fact that, although the Defendant was a third offender under N.J.S.A. 3:4-50(a), he was a first time offender under N.J.S.A. 3:4-50(g). The sentence for DWI in a school zone was modified to 180 days in the Bergen County Jail, $1,000 fine and 10-year loss of license. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in New Jersey bears serious consequences including loss of driving privileges from 7 months for a first event to 10 years for a third or subsequent event, enhanced penalties for driving while intoxicated in a school zone, heavy fines and even jail. If you are facing DUI charges, it is critical you obtain experienced defense counsel to represent you against those charges. For more information about DUI, DWI, DUI in a school zone, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving without insurance or other serious municipal court charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlinglawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Convicted Drug Dealer Is To Have Jail Credits Recalculated

Ramon Wilson entered into a negotiated plea agreement to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (cocaine), with intent to distribute within a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a)), third-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)) and a violation of probation. the State's offer was to recommend concurrent aggregate 5 year prison terms with a 3 year parole ineligibility period as well as dismissal of the remaining charges. Pursuant to the agreement, the remaining charges under the indictment were dismissed including second-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(2), second-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, public park or public building (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1) and third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2). Wilson, prior to entering into the plea, had filed an unsuccessful suppression motion to suppress drugs seized by the police and appealed the court's denial of the motion. Defendant's appeal with regard to the drugs was grounded in lack of lawful presence of police officers in an apartment when the drugs were discovered. Whitehead, the renter of an apartment known to permit dealers to distribute from his residence in exchange for free narcotics, was encountered by police on a visit to the building regarding a call about drug distribution therein. Upon encountering police, Whitehead advised that he had just returned home to three "crackheads" in his apartment distributing drugs and asked that the police remove the drug dealers from his unit. When police entered the apartment defendant jumped up and ran toward the bathroom and a bag of crack cocaine fell from his lap. Police also recovered 18 grams of crack cocaine from behind the toilet tank in the bathroom into which the defendant attempted to flee. The appellate court, in State v. Wilson, found the denial of defendant's motion to suppress to be grounded in sound legal principles and saw no reason to disturb the finding of the court below. Defendant also sought a recalculation of jail credits for the period of incarcerations between his December 2010 incarceration and August 12, 2011 sentencing. The sentencing court credited the defendant with 257 days of jail credit, however, the appellate division determined that the jail credits were not calculated according to the principles in State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011) and remanded for recalculation of defendant's jail credits. If you are facing charges of distribution or possession of CDS, you should obtain an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. For more information about drug distribution, possession, prescription medication, under the influence, CDS in a motor vehicle, DUI or other drug related matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Distribution of Drugs in a School-Zone May Not Bar Drug Court

In a recent case involving 3rd degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), marijuana, in a school zone a defendant was denied admission into the Drug Court program and appealed. Mike Pope appealed the decision of the Sussex County Superior Court Judge based on the misapplication of the standard for ordinary probation to deny him entry into Drug Court, based on a school-zone offense, while N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 allows school-zone offenders to be sentenced to Drug Court probation. The statute permitting entry into Drug Court applies as long as the transaction occurring within the school-zone does not involve distribution to a minor. Mark Pope pled guilty to distribution in the parking lot of Vernon High School under a negotiated settlement agreement which contemplated defendant's intent to apply to Drug Court. The Sussex County prosecutor argued that Pope's violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, involving distribution within 1000 feet of a school-zone, served as an automatic bar to defendant's entry into Drug Court. Defendant's appeal, in State v. Pope, asked the NJ Appellate Division to reconsider Pope's application to Drug Court based on the requirements of track 1 or 2 for admission. Track 1 being the commission of a crime subject to a presumption of mandatory incarceration and the satisfaction of 9 factors. Typically this is reserved for 1st or 2nd degree crimes and is done with the consent of the prosecutor. Track 2 is typically applied to those with ongoing drug habits who have not committed any form of violent offense. The NJ Appellate Judges held that the trial court misapplied the statute and remanded the matter for consideration under the appropriate criteria. A drug related conviction in NJ can have serious and lasting consequences including prison, loss of license, substantial fines and the stigma of the conviction or plea can result in the loss of certain employment or educational opportunities. If you are facing charges of use, possession or distribution of CDS including marijuana, meth, oxy, heroin, xanax or other drugs, it is critical you consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about prescription or non-prescription drug charges for use possession or distribution, gang-related drug charges, controlled dangerous substances in a motor vehicle, DUI and other criminal and serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.