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. Ledbetter

August 19, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
RAYMOND LEDBETTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 06-06-0791.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 29, 2008

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and LeWinn.

Defendant Raymond Ledbetter was indicted for third-degree burglary, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2; and third-degree theft, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. Tried to a jury, defendant was convicted of both charges. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The State filed a motion to sentence defendant to an extended term as a persistent offender pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).

At sentencing on April 13, 2007, the trial judge denied defendant's motion for a new trial and granted the State's motion to impose an extended term sentence. On the burglary charge defendant was sentenced to a term of eight years with a four-year period of parole ineligibility. On the theft charge, defendant received a concurrent term of five years with a two-year period of parole ineligibility. The judge also ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $1000.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:

POINT I

THE COURT'S ABBREVIATED JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ISSUE OF IDENTIFICATION DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AS THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

POINT III

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

A. The Court erred in not finding mitigating factor b(1).

B. The Court should have imposed a sentence within the ordinary range for a third degree crime.

POINT IV

THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DEFENDANT'S ABILITY ...


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.