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. Williams

April 14, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
KARL D. WILLIAMS,*FN1 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 06-05-0985.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 23, 2009

Before Judges Carchman and R. B. Coleman.

Following a jury trial, defendant Karl D. Williams was convicted of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. The judge sentenced defendant to a mandatory extended prison term of fifteen years subject to serving 85% of the sentence pursuant to the No Early Release Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We affirm.

The facts are simply stated. On January 1, 2006, the victim, Octavio Pena, was walking home from a store in Belmar when he was approached by defendant and another individual. Defendant grabbed Pena from the back and said, "Shut up, give me your chain." Pena pushed defendant away and ran home. Defendant chased the victim and at the victim's home, the victim and his friend subdued defendant who was held down until the police arrived. As a result of the robbery, Pena suffered bruises to his neck.

On appeal, defendant raises two points:

POINT I.

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT INCORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY DURING THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. (Not Raised Below)

POINT II.

WILLIAMS' SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

In reference to Point I, defendant focuses on the jury charge and specifically identifies that portion of the charge that stated:

Before you retire to deliberate and reach your verdict, it is my obligation to instruct you as to the principles of law applicable in this case. You shall consider my instructions in their entirety and pick out any particular instruction and overemphasize it.

Subsequent to the filing of defendant's brief, on notice to defendant, the State moved before the Law Division to settle the form of record. By order of August 25, 2008, the Law Division granted the application, and on August 29, 2009, the court reporter filed an errata sheet indicating that the transcript was corrected to read: "You shall consider my ...


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.