STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAMON AROCHO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1690-08T41690-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RAMON AROCHO,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

 

Submitted May 11, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 07-02-0308.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Adam W. Toraya, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie Piderit, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In July 2006, a Middlesex Grand Jury charged defendant Ramon Arocho with third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 (count one); fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3a(1) (count two); and fourth-degree criminal trespass, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3a (count three). On June 5, 2008, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to the police prior to his arrest. Tried to a jury, defendant was found guilty of all counts.

On August 11, 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of four years of probation on counts one and two, and merged the conviction on count three with the conviction on count one. The court directed defendant pay restitution in the amount of $950, pay all appropriate fines and penalties, and permanently disqualified defendant from holding future public office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2.

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I.

THE PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENTS DURING SUMMATION THAT DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY BECAUSE OF HIS PRE-ARREST SILENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO COME TO THE STATION FOR QUESTIONING VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

POINT II.

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.

POINT III.

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED VIOLATES DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. We conclude that none of the arguments are of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1690-08T4

May 21, 2010