On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 07-05-1852.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Reisner and Yannotti.
Defendant Abraham Butler appeals from a judgment of conviction dated February 29, 2008, which was entered by the Law Division after defendant was tried to a jury and found guilty of possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one); possession of CDS with intent to distribute the same, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) (count two); and possession of CDS with intent to distribute the same on school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (count three). The court merged counts two and three, and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of ten years of incarceration, with a five-year period of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for our consideration:
[THE] TRIAL COURT FAILED IN ITS GATEKEEPER FUNCTION BY PERMITTING THE EXPERT TO TESTIFY STATE V. NESBITT, 185 N.J. 504, 515 (2006). ALLOWANCE OF THE REPORT INTO THE JURY ROOM COMPOUNDED THE ERROR (plain error)
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JURY CHARGES ON MATTERS OR ISSUES THAT ARE MATERIAL IS PRESUMED TO BE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE "JURY CHARGE" SUBMISSION AS REFERENCED BY [RULE] 2:6-1(D)
DEFENDANT BUTLER IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND FOR RESENTENCING. SENTENCE IMPOSED ON COUNT I SHOULD MERGE WITH COUNT III In addition, defendant has filed a supplemental pro se brief in which he raises the following arguments:
THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. I PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY ERRONEOUS, PREJUDICIAL, AND INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW OF CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
PETITIONER CONTENDS HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, AND HE WAS ENTITLED TO CONFRONT THE WITNESS WHO PERFORMED [THE] DRUG ANALYSIS AT TRIAL
DEFENDANT ASSERTS THERE WAS SO MUCH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND HIS DISCOVERY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED AND HE WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL
IMPOSITION OF THE EXTENDED TERM SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED OR EITHER MODIFIED, AND DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RESENTENCED ...