On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 02-02-0120.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 26, 2010
Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.
A jury found defendant guilty of six counts of receiving stolen property, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7(a), four of which were third-degree and the other two fourth-degree offenses. The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended-term sentence of eight years imprisonment, with four years of parole ineligibility, for one of the third-degree offenses. The court imposed concurrent five-year terms for the other third-degree offenses and concurrent eighteen-month terms for the fourth-degree offenses. Defendant's sentence was made concurrent, but not coterminous, with a related Somerset County sentence he was already serving.
Defendant's convictions were based upon evidence obtained in an investigation of a string of residential burglaries committed in Montgomery and Hillsborough Townships, in Somerset County, during the period between May 2001 and January 2002. As a result of those burglaries, the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office established a task force consisting of members of the Prosecutor's Office and Montgomery and Hillsborough Police Departments to identify and apprehend the perpetrator or perpetrators. The task force's investigation led to the discovery that a maroon 1996 Mazda 626 had been observed at more than one burglary site.
Based on this evidence, the task force obtained an order authorizing the installation of a GPS tracking device in the maroon Mazda to facilitate surveillance of this car. The surveillance resulted in defendant's arrest near the scene of two residential burglaries committed in Hillsborough on January 26, 2002. Defendant was indicted and convicted in Somerset County of burglary, theft and other charges arising out of those burglaries.
Following defendant's arrest for the Somerset County burglaries, the task force obtained a warrant for the search of defendant's home and a safe deposit box, which were both located in Mercer County. These searches revealed property stolen in the earlier Somerset County burglaries, which formed the basis of the Mercer County receiving stolen property charges that are the subject of this appeal.
Before the trial on the charges based on the January 26, 2002 burglaries, defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by means of the installation of the GPS tracking device in the maroon Mazda, which the Somerset County trial court denied. On defendant's appeal from his convictions of the charges arising out of those burglaries, defendant challenged the denial of that motion. We rejected that challenge and defendant's other arguments and affirmed his Somerset County convictions in a lengthy unpublished opinion.*fn1
State v. Scott, Nos. A-39-04T4 and A-694-04T4 (Sept. 15, 2006).
On his appeal from the Mercer County convictions, defendant presented the following arguments:
DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE SENTENCES ON 02-02-0120-I AND 02-02-0121-I VIOLATE THE TERMS OF STATE V. PILLOT, 115 N.J. ...