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. Arocho

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


May 21, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
RAMON AROCHO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 07-02-0308.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 11, 2010

Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.

In July 2006, a Middlesex Grand Jury charged defendant Ramon Arocho with third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 (count one); fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3a(1) (count two); and fourth-degree criminal trespass, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3a (count three). On June 5, 2008, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to the police prior to his arrest. Tried to a jury, defendant was found guilty of all counts.

On August 11, 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of four years of probation on counts one and two, and merged the conviction on count three with the conviction on count one. The court directed defendant pay restitution in the amount of $950, pay all appropriate fines and penalties, and permanently disqualified defendant from holding future public office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2.

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENTS DURING SUMMATION THAT DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY BECAUSE OF HIS PRE-ARREST SILENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO COME TO THE STATION FOR QUESTIONING VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

POINT II

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.

POINT III

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED VIOLATES DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. We conclude that none of the arguments are of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20100521

© 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.