STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD OWENS

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0298-05T40298-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted May 30, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and R.B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County,

No. 03-10-0656.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated

Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Hillary Horton, Deputy Attorney

General, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

A Somerset County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging defendant, Richard Owens, with third degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7. The lower court granted defendant's motion to proceed pro se with stand-by counsel, denied his motion to suppress evidence, and, after a jury found defendant guilty, sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years with no parole for two and one-half years.

On appeal, defendant offers these arguments:

POINT I

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. (Not Raised Below).

POINT II

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RACIAL PROFILING DISCOVERY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND/OR THE COURT ERRED BY EXCLUDING RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THEREFORE, THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR ANOTHER SUPPRESSION HEARING.

POINT III

DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE AND MUST BE VACATED. (Partially Raised Below).

A. The Lower Court Failed To Recognize Appropriate Mitigating Factors. (Not Raised Below).

B. The Lower Court Abused Its Discretion By Imposing An Extended Term; In The Alternative, This Matter Must Be Remanded For Resentencing Pursuant To State v. Pierce. (Partially Raised Below).

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that apart from Point III, all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant consideration in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). As to Point III, both sides agree that a re-sentencing is required by State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 169-72 (2006).

Affirmed but remanded for re-sentencing.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0298-05T4

June 6, 2007