STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KARL R. RANDOLPH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5483-15T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KARL R. RANDOLPH, a/k/a
KARL R. RANDOLPH, JR.,

     Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________

              Submitted December 6, 2017 – Decided December 27, 2017

              Before Judges Fuentes and Manahan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos.
              14-04-0863 and 14-09-2195.

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

              Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
              Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kayla
              Elizabeth Rowe, Special Deputy Attorney
              General/Acting   Assistant Prosecutor,  of
              counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
       Defendant Karl R. Randolph appeals from a conviction after

entering a conditional guilty plea to one count of third-degree

possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent

to distribute in a school zone, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; and one count

of second-degree certain persons not to possess weapons, 
N.J.S.A.

2C:39-7(a).     On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his

motion to suppress evidence seized after the issuance of a search

warrant.     We affirm.

       The charges against defendant arose out of an undercover

investigation conducted by the Newark Police Department involving

a "proven and reliable confidential informant."             The informant

advised Newark Detective Richard Weber that defendant was selling

marijuana from his Nissan Altima, from a basement of a residence

located on Norwood Street in East Orange, and from the first floor

of a residence located on 11th Avenue in Newark.            The informant

also provided the color and license plate number of the vehicle,

which was later verified by Weber to be registered to defendant

by reference to the New Jersey Motor Vehicles database.

       The   informant    also   provided   a   physical   description    of

defendant.      After viewing a police photograph, the informant

identified defendant as the individual suspected of selling the

CDS.



                                      2                            A-5483-15T3
     Weber arranged for the informant to participate in three

controlled buys from defendant. One of the buys took place outside

of the Norwood Street address on May 12, 2014.         The other two buys

took place in the parking lot of the West Market Mall located in

Newark, and at 11th Avenue address on May 13 and May 16, 2014

respectively.

     On May 27, 2014, Weber and another detective conducted a

surveillance of defendant's activities and made the following

observations.   Defendant departed from the Norwood Street address

in the Altima and drove to the West Market Mall parking lot.          Soon

after his arrival, an unidentified male approached defendant.          The

two exchanged money for a small item.           Defendant then engaged in

similar   transactions   on   a   number   of   occasions.    Eventually,

defendant left the parking lot and drove to the 11th Avenue

location where he brought a large cooler into the residence.

Defendant then returned to the West Market Mall and engaged in

more transactions.

      Weber applied for a search warrant for defendant and the

three surveilled locations.       Repeatedly throughout the affidavit,

it referenced defendant and his suspected criminal activities.

However, in one paragraph of the affidavit, Weber referenced

another individual as the person for whom he sought the warrant.

Based upon Weber's affidavit, a Law Division judge signed the

                                     3                            A-5483-15T3
warrants authorizing the searches.       Evidence obtained from the

execution of the warrants led to defendant's conviction.

       Based upon the reference to another individual's name within

the affidavit, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence.

The motion requested a Franks hearing.1   In response to the motion,

the State submitted an affidavit signed by Weber confirming that

defendant was the sole subject of the investigation.

       On November 17, 2015, Judge Carolyn E. Wright heard oral

argument on the motion.    The judge issued an oral opinion finding

no sustainable basis for a Franks hearing.      The judge held that

the inclusion of the other individual's name was a "typographical

error."    Predicated upon her finding of probable cause based upon

the substantive recitations in the affidavit, the judge denied the

motion.

       Defendant appeals and raises the following argument:

                               POINT I

            THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
            DENYING [DEFENDANT] A HEARING PURSUANT TO
            FRANKS v. DELAWARE.

       We reject defendant's argument and affirm substantially for

the reasons stated in Judge Wright's well-reasoned opinion.          We

add only the following.



1
    Franks v. Delaware, 
438 U.S. 154 (1978).

                                  4                           A-5483-15T3
     "[A] search executed pursuant to a warrant is presumed to be

valid and [] a defendant challenging its validity has the burden

to prove 'that there was no probable cause supporting the issuance

of the warrant or that the search was otherwise unreasonable.'"

State   v.   Jones,   
179 N.J.   377,    388   (2004)   (quoting   State   v.

Valencia, 
93 N.J. 126, 133 (1983)).           "Accordingly, courts 'accord

substantial deference to the discretionary determination resulting

in the issuance of the [search] warrant.'"                State v. Keyes, 
184 N.J. 541, 554 (2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 
179 N.J. at 388).

     When "reviewing a grant or denial of a motion to suppress

[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. Gamble, 
218 N.J. 412,

424 (2014) (citing State v. Elders, 
192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007)).               We

"should reverse only when the trial court's determination is 'so

clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention

and correction.'" Id. at 425 (quoting Elders, 
192 N.J. at 244).

"A trial court's interpretation of the law, however, and the

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to

any special deference."        Ibid.       (citations omitted).      Thus, "a

trial court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo."                  Ibid.

(citing State v. Gandhi, 
201 N.J. 161, 176 (2010)).              Any "[d]oubt

                                       5                              A-5483-15T3
as to the validity of the warrant 'should ordinarily be resolved

by sustaining the search.'"   Keyes, 
184 N.J. at 554 (citing Jones,


179 N.J. at 389).

     With these principles in mind, we are satisfied with the

judge's determination that defendant was not entitled to a Franks

hearing.   As such, we discern no basis to disturb the decision

denying the motion to suppress.

     Affirmed.




                                  6                         A-5483-15T3