STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CURTIS BUCK

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1047-04T41047-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CURTIS BUCK,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted March 21, 2007 - Decided May 21, 2007

Before Judges Wefing, C.S. Fisher and Yannotti.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County,

No. I-03-05-0606.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Mark H. Friedman,

Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of

counsel and on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Michael J. Williams, Deputy

Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Curtis Buck was indicted on two counts of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; two counts of third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a(3); one count of unlawful possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f; two counts of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a; two counts of fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(4); and one count of receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7. Sam Livingston, Ernie Lane, Tamar Rawls, and Jovaughn Jordan were charged in the same indictment with the same crimes.

Defendant Ernie Lane filed a motion to suppress that the trial court granted in part and denied in part. Following that, Buck entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of first-degree robbery and was sentenced to ten years in prison, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Defendant has appealed, raising the following argument:

POINT I DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE HEADBAND SEIZED FROM THE BACKYARD AND THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE FOUND IN THE SHED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THOSE ITEMS WERE THE FRUITS OF AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO AND SEARCH OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED AREA WITHOUT A WARRANT AND WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Our decision in State v. Ernie Lane, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2007), which was also filed today, vacated the order denying the suppression motion and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Since defendant is entitled to the benefit of that ruling, we remand this matter for any further proceedings required by the ultimate outcome of the suppression motion in State v. Lane.

Remanded for further proceedings; we do not retain jurisdiction.

 

We have decided the appeals filed by defendants Jordan (A-2958-04T4), Livingston (A-0120-04T4), and Rawls (A-0026-04T4) in separate unpublished opinions also filed today.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1047-04T4

May 21, 2007