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. Stilton

July 26, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DONALD ALLEN STILTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 05-06-0903.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted: July 5, 2007

Before Judges Skillman and King.

On June 29, 2005 defendant, Donald Stilton, was indicted on Ocean County Indictment No. 05-06-0903. Count One charged the defendant with fourth-degree theft by deception, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. Count Two charged defendant with third-degree theft by deception, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. On December 15, 2005 defendant was found guilty in a jury trial; the total value was $916.12. On January 6, 2006 Judge Grasso granted defendant's motion to relieve his counsel.

On March 24, 2006 Judge Grasso denied defendant's motions for new trial, for bail pending appeal, and for a stay of sentence. The judge merged Count One with Count Two and sentenced the defendant to five years in prison.

I.

On this appeal, defendant raises these points in his Public Defender's brief:

POINT I -

THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

POINT II -

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE BASIS THAT HE FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT THE TRIAL LEVEL WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS CONTENTION.

POINT III -

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

Defendant also raises these points for reversal in his supplemental pro se brief:

POINT I -

TRIAL COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT WAS INEFFECTIVE, DID VIOLATE ETHICAL PRACTICES, AND VIOLATED HIS GUARANTEED RIGHT TO THE 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

POINT II -

JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT BAIL WHERE A MANIFEST OF INJUSTICE CLEARLY EXISTED, AND BAIL SHOULD BE GRANTED PENDING THE APPEAL.

POINT III -

JUDGE ERRED IN HIS RULING WHICH DENIED DEFENDANT TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS WHICH DENIED HIM A FAIR ...


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.