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. Trotman

August 3, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SHADEE TROTMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 98-04-0409.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 12, 2009

Before Judges Winkelstein and Gilroy.

Defendant Shadee Trotman appeals from the June 20, 2007 order denying his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm the denial of defendant's petition for PCR and modify his sentence.

I.

Tried to a jury, defendant was found guilty of second-degree conspiracy (Count One); second-degree burglary (Count Two); two counts of first-degree armed robbery (Counts Three and Four); two counts of fourth-degree aggravated assault (Counts Five and Six); third-degree terroristic threats (Count Seven); second-degree possession of a weapon (handgun) for an unlawful purpose (Count Eight); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (handgun) (Count Nine); fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm (Count Ten); fourth-degree possession of prohibited devices (hollow-nose bullets) (Count Eleven); and fourth-degree resisting arrest (Count Twelve). On July 15, 1999, the trial court granted the State's motion for an extended-term sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3d.

On Count Three, the court sentenced defendant to a thirty-year extended term with a twenty-five year period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The court merged Count Five with Count Three; and merged Counts Nine and Ten with Count Eight. On the remaining convictions, the court imposed concurrent sentences.

Accordingly, the aggregate term imposed was a thirty-year base term with a twenty-five year period of parole ineligibility.

On direct appeal, defendant presented the following issues:

POINT I.

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING THE "SHOW-UP" IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT.

POINT II.

WHETHER THE UNDERLYING ARREST WAS LEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE AND WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT MADE WHILE UNDER ARREST.

POINT III.

WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT CHALLENGE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ARREST INDEPENDENTLY NOR AS A PART OF HIS CHALLENGE TO THE ...


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.