STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAPHNEE THOMAS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2580-04T42580-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAPHNEE THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted June 20, 2006 - Decided July 17, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Cuff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, 03-04-1507.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ingrid A. Enriquez, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joan E. Love, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of four controlled dangerous substance counts, all of which were merged into a third-degree school zone possession of cocaine with intent to distribute conviction. A four-year custodial term with a mandatory three-year disqualifier was imposed, along with the necessary fines and penalties. The convictions were premised upon police surveillance observations of defendant's involvement in a number of drug transactions. On appeal, defendant contends:

POINT I: DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF PERMITTING LESPIER AND FURLOW TO TESTIFY AS BOTH FACT AND EXPERT WITNESSES ON THE ISSUE OF INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE (Not Raised Below).

POINT II: THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE ELEMENT OF INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS; CONSEQUENTLY THE CONVICTIONS ON COUNTS THREE AND FOUR MUST BE VACATED (Not Raised Below).

A. THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF CDS.

B. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY WITH JONES TO DISTRIBUTE CDS.

POINT VI: THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

A. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FAILING TO PROPERLY CREDIT DEFENDANT WITH A MITIGATING FACTOR.

We have carefully considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable law. We are convinced they are of insufficient merit to warrant further opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2580-04T4

July 17, 2006