On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment Nos. 04-02-0161 and 04-02-0162.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 5, 2009
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Alvarez.
Tried to a jury, defendant Andre Lamarr Williams was convicted on Union County Indictment No. 04-02-0161 of third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count one); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (count two); and fourth-degree possession of a prohibited weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d) (count three). He was acquitted of the charge of fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4) (count five), and the State dismissed a count of fourth-degree obstruction of administration of law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 (count four). A charge of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count six), was dismissed on defendant's motion. On that same day, defendant entered a guilty plea to a related charge on the single count of Indictment No. 04-02-0162, second-degree possession by certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7.
Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied on March 18, 2005. On June 30, 2006, defendant's sentence date, the trial judge heard defendant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict and his motion for a new trial, as well as the State's motion to sentence defendant to a discretionary extended term pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3. All of these applications were denied.
Defendant was sentenced to a five-year prison term subject to thirty months of parole ineligibility on the charge of unlawful possession of a weapon, a ten-year prison term subject to sixty months of parole ineligibility on the charge of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, an eighteen-month prison term on the charge of possession of a prohibited weapon, and a five-year prison term subject to five years of parole ineligibility on the charge of certain persons not to possess. All of the sentences were made concurrent to each other and consecutive to the sentence that defendant was then serving. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WERE FATALLY FLAWED AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE GAVE A FLIGHT INSTRUCTION.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SINCE THE INITIAL STOP OF DEFENDANT BY POLICE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE JURY VERDICT.
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS ...