STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES LEE SMITH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6214-07T46214-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMES LEE SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________

 

Submitted April 20, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment

No. 07-04-0320.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Abby P. Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Sara B. Liebman, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for first-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(1), and another drug offense. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to the charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment, with five years of parole ineligibility. The sentence was made concurrent to the sentence on a violation of probation that the defendant was then serving.

On appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant presents the following argument:

THE UNCORROBORATED TIP FROM THE UNKNOWN INFORMANT DID NOT GIVE THE POLICE PERMISSION TO ATTEMPT TO GAIN ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT'S HOME. THUS, THE DRUGS WERE NOT IN "PLAIN VIEW" AND THE SEARCH OF THE REST OF THE APARTMENT WAS ILLEGAL AND THE SEIZED CONTRABAND MUST BE SUPPRESSED.

Defendant also has filed a pro se supplemental brief regarding the denial of his motion to suppress.

 
We reject defendant's argument substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Moynihan's oral opinion denying defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-6214-07T4

May 5, 2010