STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID L. DIXON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2124-16T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAVID L. DIXON,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________

              Submitted March 6, 2018 – Decided March 22, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos.
              15-01-0229, 16-01-0198 and 16-02-0260.

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

              Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor,
              attorney for respondent (Nicole L. Campellone,
              Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant    appeals     from   his   convictions     for   third-degree

possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent
to distribute within 1000 feet of a school, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7;

third-degree      eluding,    
N.J.S.A.    2C:29-2(b);       and    third-degree

possession of CDS, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1).

     A   police    officer    observed    a   Jeep   driving      in   the     wrong

direction on a one-way street in front of the police department.

The officer stopped the Jeep, approached the front passenger side,

and observed defendant in the passenger seat. She asked the driver

for his credentials, but the driver, who was nervous and avoiding

eye contact, did not have his driver's license.             The driver exited

the Jeep after back-up police arrived, and another officer saw

multiple wax paper folds filled with suspected heroin scattered

on the seat and front floor.       The police then arrested the driver,

who consented to a search of the Jeep, which did not uncover more

drugs.

     A   detective,     who    knew   defendant      from    prior      narcotics

investigations, asked him to step out of the Jeep.                     One of the

officers asked defendant how much money he had in his possession.

Defendant, who was standing at the back of the Jeep, replied that

he had $25.       The police later, after the driver confirmed he

purchased drugs in the amount consistent with the amount of money

in defendant's possession, arrested defendant, conducted a search

incident to the arrest, and located heroin in defendant's pants.



                                      2                                      A-2124-16T1
     On appeal, defendant argues:

            BECAUSE THE IMPROPER QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT
            WITHOUT MIRANDA4 WARNINGS ONCE HE CLEARLY WAS
            NOT FREE TO LEAVE THE AREA OF THE STOP REVEALED
            THE CRITICAL INFORMATION THAT LED POLICE TO
            FORMALLY ARREST DEFENDANT, AND TAKE HIM TO
            HEADQUARTERS, WHERE THEREAFTER HEROIN WAS
            DISCOVERED ON HIS PERSON, THE MOTION TO
            SUPPRESS THE HEROIN THAT WAS DISCOVERED SHOULD
            HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

            __________
            4
                Miranda v. Arizona, 
384 U.S. 436 (1966).

     Defendant essentially maintains that he was in custody when

the police asked him how much money he had in his possession.        As

a result, he argues the judge erred by denying his motion to

suppress.       We conclude that defendant's argument on appeal is

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons

set forth by Judge Michael J. Blee in his thorough and well-

reasoned decision.

     Affirmed.




                                   3                          A-2124-16T1