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. Rolax

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


January 26, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LAMAR ROLAX, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Indictment Nos. 07-02-0749, 07-03-1020, 07-10-3286, and Accusation No. 08-04-1278.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 11, 2010

Before Judges Baxter and Coburn.

Pursuant to a plea agreement that resolved the three indictments and the accusation noted in the caption, all involving multiple controlled dangerous substance offenses, except for the single count accusation, defendant pled guilty to four violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, possession of a controlled dangerous substance in a school zone with intent to distribute. On these third-degree crimes, the State agreed that defendant's total sentence would not exceed imprisonment for five years with three years of parole ineligibility, and the judge sentenced defendant to four such concurrent terms.

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motions to suppress the evidence seized in the three cases that resulted in indictments. He also argues that the sentence imposed was excessive.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Also, respecting the motions to suppress the evidence seized on each of the indicted cases, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Schuck, which in each instance involve detailed findings of fact that are fully supported by the evidence and precisely correct applications of the relevant legal principles. The sentence imposed was obviously justified. In passing, we note that the only attack on the judgment imposed on the accusation is that the sentence was excessive.

Affirmed.

20100126

© 1992-2010 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.