June 6, 2007
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
RICHARD OWENS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, No. 03-10-0656.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 30, 2007
Before Judges Coburn and R.B. Coleman.
A Somerset County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging defendant, Richard Owens, with third degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7. The lower court granted defendant's motion to proceed pro se with stand-by counsel, denied his motion to suppress evidence, and, after a jury found defendant guilty, sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years with no parole for two and one-half years.
On appeal, defendant offers these arguments:
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. (Not Raised Below).
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RACIAL PROFILING DISCOVERY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND/OR THE COURT ERRED BY EXCLUDING RELEVANT EVIDENCE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THEREFORE, THIS MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR ANOTHER SUPPRESSION HEARING.
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE AND MUST BE VACATED. (Partially Raised Below).
A. The Lower Court Failed To Recognize Appropriate Mitigating Factors. (Not Raised Below).
B. The Lower Court Abused Its Discretion By Imposing An Extended Term; In The Alternative, This Matter Must Be Remanded For Resentencing Pursuant To State v. Pierce. (Partially Raised Below).
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that apart from Point III, all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant consideration in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). As to Point III, both sides agree that a re-sentencing is required by State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 169-72 (2006).
Affirmed but remanded for re-sentencing.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.