Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hampton

July 13, 2000

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CARL HAMPTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Before Judges Stern, Kestin and Wefing.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stern, P.J.A.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued May 17, 2000

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County.

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin (count two) and possession of heroin with intent to distribute (count one). Count two was merged into count one, and defendant was sentenced to an extended term of nine years in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections, with three years before parole eligibility. On this appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I THE STATE TROOPER IN THIS CASE COULD NOT ARTICULATE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE STOP THAT LED TO HIS DECISION TO REQUEST CONSENT FOR A SEARCH OF THE ENTIRE VEHICLE. HIS OVERALL TESTIMONY WAS INCREDIBLE, MAKING IT JUST AS LIKELY THAT DEFENDANTS WERE SINGLED OUT FOR A CONSENT SEARCH BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRICAN-AMERICANS. THIS CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF STATE POLICE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND VIOLATED DEFENDANTS' STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, AND THEIR RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. (U.S. CONST., AMENDS IV AND XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. I, PARAS. 1, 7.) (Partially Raised Below)

A) Judge John Conte's Credibility Finding Was Wrong Given That It Was Based Upon Nothing More Than The Trooper's Naked Assertions.

B) Defendant's Rights To Due Process And Equal Protection Were Infringed.

POINT II THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE AS THE DEFENDANTS WERE ILLEGALLY DETAINED PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE DRUGS

POINT III SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT WAS AUTHORIZED. (Not Raised Below)

POINT IV THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY AND DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL. (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI AND XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. I, PAR. 10.[)] (Not Raised Below)

POINT V THE SENTENCING JUDGE IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS AGAINST DEFENDANT.

POINT VI THE D.E.D.R. PENALTY AND LAB FEE AS IMPOSED AT SENTENCING ARE ERRONEOUS AND MUST BE MODIFIED.

In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant also argues:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUP[P]RESS[.] AS A RESULT THE APPELLANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE COURT'S RULING

NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPER MICHAEL DAVIS CONDUCTED[] AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROFILE ARREST AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FOURTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT [SIC] TO THE UNITED STATES ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.