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. Sweet

December 29, 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TURRELL SWEET A/K/A DEXTER BOMAR, TERRELL M. BOMONT, JEROME BROWN, RAHEEM CARTER, BOMAR DEXTER, JOHNNIE JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 04-11-1401.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted December 8, 2008

Before Judges Lisa and Alvarez.

Defendant, Turrell Sweet, was indicted along with a co-defendant, Dyeshia Sanders, for (1) third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1); (2) third-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3); and (3) second-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute in or within 500 feet of a public park, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1. The jury found defendant guilty of all three charges, and it acquitted his co-defendant of all three charges. Judge Perfilio merged counts one and two with count three, and sentenced defendant to eight years imprisonment with a four-year parole disqualifier.

Defendant argues on appeal:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TIME TO ENTERTAIN A SEPARATE MOTION BY THE DEFENSE TO IDENTIFY A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT UNDER N.J.R.E. 516 AND IN FAILING TO DO SO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL.

POINT II

THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL WAS SO INEFFECTIVE AS TO RESULT IN A FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I PAR. 10 OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION.

A. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE INSOFAR AS HE FAILED TO PRESENT AN EVIDENTIARY MOTION TO THE COURT TO PRODUCE A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

B. DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE INSOFAR AS HE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADVISE AND REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO THE SENTENCING CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING A PLEA.

POINT III

THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY ...


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.