On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Ind. No. 03-06-00881.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 11, 2007
Before Judges Yannotti and LeWinn.
On June 27, 2003, defendant was indicted for sexual assault upon S.Z., a child less than thirteen years old (second degree), N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and for endangering the welfare of a child (third degree), N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). A jury convicted defendant on both charges. Defendant was thereafter sentenced on count one to an extended term of seventeen years with an eight-year parole ineligibility period, and on count two to a concurrent term of five years with a two-and-a-half-year parole ineligibility period. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to -3, defendant was ordered to serve this sentence at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) based upon the court's determination, after a hearing, that defendant's conduct was characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior and he would be amendable to treatment.
Defendant appeals his convictions and sentence, and raises the following arguments:
THE ADMISSION OF THE VIDEOTAPED HEARSAY STATEMENT OF S.Z. CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
ADMISSION OF S.Z.'S HEARSAY STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE TO HIS MOTHER CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE [ERROR]
THE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ORDERING A STATE V. MICHAELS TAINT HEARING
THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE'S PROOFS FOR FAILURE TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO THE DEFENDANT OF CHARGES AGAINST HIM
THE JURY VERDICT CONSTITUTED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGAL AND EXCESSIVE AS THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT DEFENDANT WAS A REPETITIVE, COMPULSIVE SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, THE COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN SENTENCING HIM TO AN EXTENDED TERM
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant's arguments are without merit, with the exception of his contention that he is entitled to be re-sentenced ...