On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, 98-4-812- I.
Before Judges Wallace, Jr., Carchman and Wells.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wallace, Jr., J.A.D.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted: December 4, 2001
Defendant Lester Denmon was convicted by a jury of first degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1b (counts one and two); first degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count three); second degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count four); third degree unlawful possession of a weapon, a hand gun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count five); fourth degree credit card theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6c (count six); third degree fraudulent use of credit cards, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6h (counts eleven, fourteen and seventeen); third degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4 (count eight); fourth degree forgery, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1a(2) (counts twelve, fifteen and eighteen); fourth degree forgery by uttering a writing, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1a(3) (counts thirteen, sixteen and nineteen); fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon, an ice pick, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d (count twenty); and fourth degree certain persons not to have weapons N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6A (count twenty-one).
Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial was denied on March 17, 2000. The judge granted the State's motion to impose an extended term and imposed a concurrent extended sentence of forty years with twenty years of parole ineligibility on counts one and two. The judge imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.
On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments in his main brief.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL ON THE BASIS OF GRATUITOUS, PREJUDICIAL REMARKS MADE BY A STATE WITNESS.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL N.O.V. AND FOR A NEW TRIAL.
THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING AN EXTENDED TERM SENTENCE.
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT IS EXCESSIVE.
Defendant makes the following arguments in his pro se supplemental brief.
THE PROSECUTOR FAILED TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO BRADY V. MARYLAND BY FAILING TO PROVIDE THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNERS OF BOTH THE LICENSE PLATE AND VEHICLE AND SUPPRESSION AND CONCEALMENT OF ...