STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERWONNE CAMPBELL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0136-07T40136-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

GERWONNE CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: May 5, 2010 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment Nos. 05-12-1263, 06-04-0498; Accusation No. 06-05-0459.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Leslie-Ann M. Justus, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Gerwonne Campbell entered into a plea agreement following the denial of his motion to suppress. He is serving an aggregate seven-year term of imprisonment with a three-year period of parole ineligibility following his plea, under Indictment No. 05-12-1263, to second degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (heroin) with intent to distribute near a public facility, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1 (Count Five). Under the same indictment, he also entered a plea of guilty to third degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute near school property, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (Count Four), and it is from this merged offense that we derive the mandatory three-year period of parole ineligibility. Defendant also pled guilty, under Indictment No. 06-04-0498, to second degree eluding, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2B, for which he received a concurrent term of five years flat. In addition, defendant pled guilty, under Accusation No. 06-05-0459, to third degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute near school property, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, and received a concurrent five-year term with a three-year period of parole ineligibility. The appropriate fees, fines, penalties, assessments and driver's license suspension were also imposed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:

POINT I:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE DRUGS WHICH DEFENDANT DISCARDED DURING THE ENSUING CHASE BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE WAS THE PRODUCT OF AN ILLEGAL STOP WITHOUT A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT DEFENDANT WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIME.

POINT II:

DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROPER ASSESSMENT OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS.

Having reviewed this record in its entirety, we conclude that the arguments presented are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Judge Delehey found Officer Maxwell credible and proceeded to find that Maxwell observed defendant standing in the middle of the street holding small white bags containing a white substance. Based on his training and experience, Maxwell believed the item in defendant's hand was an illegal substance. Under these circumstances, the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity by defendant and a basis to stop defendant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 906 (1968). These facts are a far cry from State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158 (1994). In Tucker, police chased and detained a young man for no reason other than his flight when he saw a police car. Id. at 162. The Court held that mere flight did not support the chase and seizure of the defendant. Id. at 168-70.

 
The sentence is unremarkable. State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-66 (1984).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-0136-07T4

May 21, 2010