STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAMAR ROLAX

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0854-08T4854-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LAMAR ROLAX,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted January 11, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Baxter and Coburn.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,

Indictment Nos. 07-02-0749, 07-03-1020,

07-10-3286, and Accusation No. 08-04-1278.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes,

Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Nancy P. Scharff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea agreement that resolved the three indictments and the accusation noted in the caption, all involving multiple controlled dangerous substance offenses, except for the single count accusation, defendant pled guilty to four violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, possession of a controlled dangerous substance in a school zone with intent to distribute. On these third-degree crimes, the State agreed that defendant's total sentence would not exceed imprisonment for five years with three years of parole ineligibility, and the judge sentenced defendant to four such concurrent terms.

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motions to suppress the evidence seized in the three cases that resulted in indictments. He also argues that the sentence imposed was excessive.

 
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Also, respecting the motions to suppress the evidence seized on each of the indicted cases, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Schuck, which in each instance involve detailed findings of fact that are fully supported by the evidence and precisely correct applications of the relevant legal principles. The sentence imposed was obviously justified. In passing, we note that the only attack on the judgment imposed on the accusation is that the sentence was excessive.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-0854-08T4

January 26, 2010