STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANGELO L. PADILLA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2982-05T42982-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANGELO L. PADILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 4, 2006 - Decided October 19, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment

No. 04-08-0797.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Susan Brody, Assistant Deputy

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Ronald J. Casella, Cumberland County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Christina E. Foglio,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of second degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b (count one); and third degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b (count two). The judge merged count two into count one, and imprisoned defendant for a five-year term.

Both charges arose out of a single act of eluding that occurred on April 7, 2004, at approximately 3:00 a.m., when Sergeant Davis of the Vineland Police Department attempted to stop defendant's motor vehicle because it matched the color of an automobile that had been involved in a burglary. The Officer activated his emergency lights, and stopped his patrol vehicle in the center of South Street at a forty-five degree angle as he observed defendant approaching. The officer exited the patrol vehicle, and motioned with his hand for defendant to stop. Defendant accelerated and proceeded past the police officer. Officer Davis pursued defendant with his emergency lights and sirens activated. Defendant brought his vehicle to a stop at a traffic signal; and as the officer approached the vehicle, defendant accelerated and turned left through the red traffic signal onto South Seventh Street, where after a short distance, he pulled into a residential driveway. A struggle ensued with defendant eventually being pepper sprayed and handcuffed.

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER COMMENTS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT WERE SO EGREGIOUS AND SO BLATANTLY PREJUDICIAL THAT THEY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARS. 1, 9, 10 (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT II

THE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN PRESENTING THE CASE TO THE JURY AS TWO SEPARATE CHARGES, AS OPPOSED TO ONLY ONE CHARGE COMBINED WITH THE NEED FOR A JURY DETERMINATION AS TO DEGREE (NOT RAISED BELOW).

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2982-05T4

 

October 19, 2006