STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH DOUGLAS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5685-04T45685-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH DOUGLAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted September 26, 2006 - Decided October 10, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Lihotz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, IND. No. 02-09-3439.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stephen M. Bunda, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara A. Friedman, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Joseph Douglas was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); the unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d (count two); possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d (count three). The trial court merged count two with count three and count three with count one, sentencing defendant to a ten-year prison term, eighty-five percent without parole eligibility and five years of post-release parole supervision, pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Defendant appeals, raising the following issues:

POINT 1:

SINCE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONVICTION BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF AQUITTAL.

POINT 2:

THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AND THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

After analyzing the record, the applicable law and the arguments raised, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence. We reject defendant's arguments addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence as being "without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Our examination of the record discloses the proofs amply support the jury's verdict on each of the crimes charged. See State v. MacIlwraith, 344 N.J.Super. 544, 547 (App. Div. 2001).

We also reject defendant's argument challenging the sentence as excessive. The ten-year term was the minimum sentence provided by statute for a first-degree crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6. We are satisfied Judge Lester's consideration of applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, as set forth in her oral determination dated April 8, 2003, was supported by sufficient evidence in the record. See State v. Kromphold, 162 N.J. 345, 355-358 (2000), see also State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 501 (2005).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5685-04T4

 

October 10, 2006