Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bennet

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


August 18, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOE BENNET A/K/A YUSEF BENNETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 05-12-1708.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 14, 2009

Before Judges Fisher and Gilroy.

On December 13, 2005, a Hudson County Grand Jury charged defendant Joe Bennet and co-defendant Zakiyyah Hawkins with two counts of armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (Counts One and Two); possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 4a (Count Three); possession of a handgun without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (Count Four); possession of a weapon (a folding knife) under circumstances not manifestly appropriate, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d (Count Five); certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b (Count Six); and aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(3) (Count Seven). On March 23, 2007, the trial court denied defendant's and co-defendant's joint motion to suppress evidence.

On June 19, 2007, defendant pled guilty to Count One in exchange for the State recommending a sentence of eighteen years of imprisonment with an 85% period of parole ineligibility, pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. On September 14, 2007, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement and dismissed the remaining charges. On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I. THE STATE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE ITS CASE; CONSEQUENTLY THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

A. THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT UNDERGIRDED DETECTIVE SCHUBERT'S DECISION TO STOP THE LINCOLN IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE.

B. THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A WARRANT TO SEARCH THE CAR; THEREFORE, THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

POINT II. DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. We conclude that the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20090818

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.