STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALTEQUAN R. ROBINSON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5896-03T45896-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALTEQUAN R. ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

 

Submitted April 5, 2006 - Decided September 1, 2006

Before Judges Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Union County,

03-02-0118-I.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Alison Perrone,

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. He was sentenced to a prison term of fifteen years, with an 85% parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 (NERA), consistent with his plea agreement. The sentencing judge cited aggravating factors 3, 6, and 9 and the absence of mitigating factors in determining defendant's his sentence.

On appeal, defendant presents these arguments:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BECAUSE UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION WAS INVOLUNTARY.

POINT TWO

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING A FIFTEEN-YEAR TERM BECAUSE A QUALITATIVE WEIGHING OF THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A SENTENCE.

We have reviewed the record in light of defendant's contentions, and conclude that there is insufficient merit in defendant's arguments on appeal to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We therefore affirm, adding only these brief comments.

Defendant was apprehended from photographs obtained from a surveillance video of the gas station he robbed. Four police officers identified defendant as the person depicted on the photos. He was read his rights under Miranda, and signed a waiver of rights form. After two hours of interrogation, he signed a statement detailing his involvement in the robbery.

Defendant testified at a Miranda hearing that he was high on cocaine when first arrested, and suffering from cocaine withdrawal at the time he confessed to the robbery. One of the police detectives who participated in the questioning that led to defendant's statement testified that defendant did not manifest any such symptoms. The judge believed the testimony of the officer, as he was free to do. We defer to his credibility findings. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). There is no basis in the record for our intervention in the decision that defendant voluntarily waived his rights and provided his statement.

 
Defendant had a long criminal record, which included seven indictable convictions. The sentence was well-supported by his record.

Affirmed.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5896-03T4

September 1, 2006