STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TYMON P. ANDERSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1506-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TYMON P. ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________

February 11, 2013

Submitted February 5, 2013 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,Law Division,Union County,Indictment No. 10-02-0134.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Theresa Yvette Kyles, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Theodore J.Romankow, UnionCounty Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Derek T. Nececkas, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his Elizabeth motel room, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(3), and third-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a), and was sentenced to a six-year prison term on the former and a concurrent four-year prison term on the latter.

Defendant appeals, arguing, in a single point:

THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS THAT THE DETECTIVES HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO ENTER ANDERSON'S MOTEL ROOM, AND THAT THE DISCOVERY OF COCAINE WAS WITHIN THE "PLAIN VIEW" DOCTRINE, WERE CLEARLY MISTAKEN AND SO WIDE OF THE MARK THAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE APPELLATE INTERVENTION REVERSING THE ORDER DENYING SUPPRESSION (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. IV AND XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, 7).

We find insufficient merit in this argument to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), adding only a few brief comments.

At the suppression hearing, the judge was required to determine whether the State's version as to what led to the seizure of CDS in defendant's motel room was more likely to have occurred than defendant's version.

The State's version consisted of testimony that the police approached defendant's motel room door in Elizabeth on a tip from an untested confidential informant that a man fitting defendant's description was selling drugs from that room. During surveillance, the officers determined that the motel room was occupied by a man fitting the description provided by the confidential informant. The police then knocked on the door while announcing "police," and defendant opened the door and punched one of the officers. Another officer was struck as he intervened and as they attempted to end the melee and arrest defendant, the group of officers forced defendant down into the room, where CDS was observed in plain view.

In support of his version, defendant testified that he heard a knock on his motel room door and asked who was there. A voice said "maintenance." Defendant then had barely opened the door when tackled by several men, who pushed him onto the motel room bed and floor and handcuffed him.

Certainly, if the State's version is to be believed, the seizure of the CDS in the motel room was lawful because the officers had a right to be in defendant's room as they moved to terminate defendant's assault and arrest him. Once in the motel room, the CDS was found in plain view. Defendant's version, if believed, supports his contention that police unlawfully entered his motel room, which for constitutional purposes is akin to his home. See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S. Ct. 408, 413, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374, 381 (1966); State v. Mollica, 114 N.J. 329, 342 (1989). That is, according to defendant, the officers simply forced their way into his motel room without warrant, consent or other legal justification.

Asexplained inhis thoroughoral decision,Judge StuartL. Peim found the State's witness credible and determined that the State had sustained its burden of showing that the police were entitled to enter the motel room where they found the CDS in plain view. In reviewing such a decision, we "must uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007). Such findings may only be disturbed when "so clearly mistaken 'that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'" Id. at 244 (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)); see also State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 15 (2009). Defendant has not demonstrated that the judge's findings were "clearly mistaken."

Affirmed.