STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RODNEY PRITCHARD

 

(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)

                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-4268-15T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RODNEY PRITCHARD,

        Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

              Argued December 12, 2017 – Decided February 27, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher and Sumners.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Monmouth County, Municipal
              Appeal No. 15-074.

              Peter M. O'Mara argued the cause for appellant
              (The O'Mara Law Firm, attorneys; Peter M.
              O'Mara, on the brief).

              Mary R. Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, argued
              the cause for respondent (Christopher J.
              Gramiccioni,   Monmouth   County   Prosecutor,
              attorney; Mary R. Juliano, of counsel and on
              the brief; William A. Visone, Legal Assistant,
              on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      After   the   municipal    court      denied     defendant's    motion    to

suppress his incriminating statement made at his home to police

officer   Anthony    Ciambrone    who    was    investigating   a    single-car

accident, defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to leaving

the scene of the accident, 
N.J.S.A. 39:4-129(b).                     On de novo

appeal, the Law Division judge upheld the denial of the motion and

entry of defendant's guilty plea.              The judge determined, as did

the   municipal     court,   that,   based      upon    Ciambrone's    credible

testimony, defendant's wife had unsolicitedly invited Ciambrone

into the couple's home where defendant admitted to driving the car

that was in the accident.        The judge found that because Ciambrone

did not ask to enter the house, he was under no obligation to

inform her that she had the right to refuse his entry.                     Thus,

defendant's admission was not suppressed.

      Defendant argues on appeal:

           POINT I

           OFFICER CIAMBRONE'S WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND
           SEARCH OF THE [DEFENDANT'S] HOUSEHOLD WAS
           UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNJUSTIFIED UNDER ANY
           EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

           POINT II

           OFFICER CIAMBRONE DID NOT HAVE PROPER CONSENT
           TO   ENTER   THE   [DEFENDANT'S]   HOUSEHOLD,
           JUSTIFYING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE FOUND.




                                        2                                A-4268-15T2
We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the judge's

oral decision.       We add the following comments.

     We    need     not   detail       the    events        that    led       Ciambrone      to

defendant's home to resolve this appeal.                           Suffice it to say,

Ciambrone's investigation revealed that the license plate left at

the accident scene was registered to the damaged car with a missing

license     plate     that       was    parked         in    defendant's         driveway.

Consequently,       the   crux    of    this      appeal     turns       on    the    judge's

assessment of Ciambrone's entry into the house.

     In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, we "uphold

the factual findings underlying [a judge's] decision so long as

those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in

the record."      State v. Gamble, 
218 N.J. 412, 424 (2014).                          We only

reverse if the decision was "so clearly mistaken that the interests

of justice demand intervention and correction."                                Id. at 425

(quoting    State    v.   Elders,       192      N.J.   224,       244    (2007)).         The

"[judge's]     interpretation           of       the    law,       however,          and   the

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to

any special deference[,]" and are therefore reviewed de novo.

Ibid.     Moreover, the two-court rule provides that we "should not

undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility

determinations made by [a municipal court and the Law Division]



                                             3                                        A-4268-15T2
absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error."                            State

v. Locurto, 
157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999).

      Defendant asserts that Ciambrone's entry into his home when

he     obtained      defendant's            incriminating             statement        was

unconstitutional        and   not    within     an    exception       to    the   warrant

requirement.      We agree with defendant that under State v. Fair,


45 N.J. 77, 87 (1965), a police officer can enter a home without

a warrant where there was a perceived threat to public safety, or

where entry was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence.

However, that was not the situation here.                       As the State contends,

Ciambrone did not need a warrant to lawfully enter the home after

receiving consent, State v. Cushing, 
226 N.J. 187, 199 (2016)

(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 
412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)), from

the homeowner, or from any person who the police reasonably

believes has authority to consent.                State v. Coles, 
218 N.J. 322,

340   (2014).     Moreover,         there   was      no    fault    with    the   judge's

reasoning that, in this non-custodial situation, there was no need

to advise defendant's wife of her right to refuse to consent as

required by State v. Johnson, 
68 N.J. 349, 354 (1975), unless

there was a request to search or enter the home.

      Turning to the judge's finding that Ciambrone was given

consent   to    enter    defendant's        home,         she    credited   Ciambrone's

testimony that defendant's wife, who he knew from her community

                                            4                                     A-4268-15T2
involvement, invited him into the home - without asking to enter

- when he asked her if defendant was home, and escorted him to the

basement where defendant was located.   It was there that defendant

informed Ciambrone that he drove the damaged car in the accident

being investigated.   Defendant points to no reason why we should

upset that factual finding.   Accordingly, we uphold the decision

to deny defendant's motion to suppress.

     Affirmed.




                                5                           A-4268-15T2