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. Guy

March 24, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SEAN GUY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 05-05-2059.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 3, 2008

Before Judges Lintner and Graves.

Following a jury trial, defendant Sean Guy was found guilty of third-degree receiving a stolen vehicle, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7 (count one); fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a) (count two); and fourth-degree hindering apprehension or prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(4). Based on defendant's prior criminal record, he qualified as a persistent offender. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the State's motion for imposition of an extended term because it determined defendant could "be adequately punished within the normal range of sentences." Defendant was sentenced to a five-year prison term with two and one-half years of parole ineligibility on count one, eighteen months with nine months of parole ineligibility on count two, and eighteen months with nine months of parole ineligibility on count three. The sentences on counts two and three are to be served concurrent with count one, but all three sentences are consecutive to defendant's Pennsylvania sentence.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

POINT I

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING OFFICER SEVICK TO OFFER INADMISSIBLE OPINION TESTIMONY, AND FURTHER BY NOT DELIVERING AN INSTRUCTION ON EXPERT TESTIMONY, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. (NOT RAISED BELOW)

POINT II

THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS DURING SUMMATION WERE IMPROPER AND SO PREJUDICIAL AS TO DENY DEFENDANT A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRE THE REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTIONS. U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV; N.J. CONST., (1947), ART. 1, ¶10. (NOT RAISED BELOW)

POINT III

DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE.

After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Nevertheless, we add the following comments.

On March 29, 2005, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Nina Lamprecht of Glen Valley, Pennsylvania drove her black Lexus SUV to the Rittenhouse Hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to have her hair done. After receiving her ticket from the valet, Lamprecht proceeded into the building to her hairdresser's salon. ...


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.