STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUCHO MADERA

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5678-03T45678-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LUCHO MADERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: October 3, 2005 - Decided:

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Middlesex County, 03-05-0736.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Nancy A. Hulett, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged in thirteen counts with crimes arising from two incidents in which he had abducted his estranged wife, the first time with a knife and the second time at gunpoint. On the first occasion, the victim escaped from a moving motor vehicle; on the second occasion, defendant dropped the victim off unharmed after about an hour of driving her around while attempting to persuade her to drop the charges she had filed against him as a result of the first incident.

Five of the counts charging third- and fourth-degree crimes were dismissed, and the jury found defendant not guilty of three other charges: two alleging first-degree crimes, kidnapping and carjacking, and one alleging third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. The jury convicted defendant of two second-degree crimes: kidnapping and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose; and three third-degree crimes: terroristic threats, witness tampering, and unlawful possession of a weapon.

The trial court sentenced defendant, for the merged kidnapping and witness tampering convictions, to seven years of imprisonment with eighty-five percent of the term to be served without parole and subject to three years of parole supervision on release. A concurrent term of seven years' imprisonment was provided for the second-degree weapon conviction. A consecutive term of four years' imprisonment was also imposed for the terroristic threat conviction, along with a concurrent four-year term for unlawful possession of a weapon. Appropriate statutory penalties, assessments and fees were ordered.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

POINT I THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE WERE VIOLATED BY THE ADMISSION OF A POLICE OFFICER'S HEARSAY TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS "WANTED . . . FOR . . . KIDNAPPING. . . ." U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. [], ART. I, PAR. 10. (Not Raised Below)

POINT II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT'S GREAT PREJUDICE IN DENYING SEVERANCE AND SEPARATE TRIALS OF COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT CONCERNING SEPARATE CRIMES, NECESSITATING REVERSAL.

POINT III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IRRELEVANT, BUT HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL, TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD A GUN, NECESSITATING REVERSAL. (Not Raised Below)

POINT IV THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE, NECESSITATING REDUCTION.

A. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING EXCESSIVE SENTENCES.

B. THE COURT ALSO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

Our review of the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing standards of law discloses that none of the arguments made has sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

As to the issues not raised before the trial court, we discern no error that led to a manifestly unjust result. As to the denial of defendant's severance motion, there was no misapplication of the trial court's discretion in the ruling it made. In every instance, the trial judge acted appropriately to protect defendant's right to a fair trial.

The presumptive sentences imposed, with the provision for consecutive terms, were also well within the trial court's discretion. We will not disturb them.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5678-03T4

October 20, 2005

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.