STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SHURA JOHNSON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1070-05T41070-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHURA JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 19, 2007 - Decided July 3, 2007

Before Judges Stern and Coburn.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Middlesex County, Law Division, 04-09-1446.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Ruth A. Harrigan, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Simon Louis Rosenbach,

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, and third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1), and Judge Gelade imposed consecutive sentences resulting in an aggregate prison term of eleven years.

The facts are uncomplicated. The police observed defendant trying to sell drugs from his car. An officer approached and defendant sped off, knocking the buyer down. He drove through four stop signs without stopping, made an illegal U-turn, and was finally stopped by the police. Defendant was in possession of over $1,600 and a bag of cocaine.

On appeal, defendant offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WERE FATALLY FLAWED AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY AS REQUESTED

POINT III

THE JURY'S VERDICTS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (Not Raised Below)

POINT IV

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendants arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant consideration in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Nonetheless, we add the following comments.

The identification testimony concerned another indictment and was not admitted in this case. Consequently, the argument contained in Point I of defendant's brief is irrelevant.

There was no rational basis for a conspiracy charge, State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 396 (2002), and the evidence of guilt was substantial. Defendant's sentencing arguments are unworthy of comment.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1070-05T4

July 3, 2007