On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 06-12-1211.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 14, 2010
Before Judges Graves and Messano.
Defendant Carlos Santiago appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentenced imposed following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of third-degree distribution of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(3) (Count One); and third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (Count Two). The State moved for imposition of a mandatory extended term based upon defendant's prior drug conviction. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f). The judge granted the State's application and sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of ten years, with a four-year period of parole ineligibility on Count One, and a concurrent term of imprisonment of five years with a two-and-one-half year period of parole ineligibility on Count Two. The appropriate financial penalties were also imposed.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR AN INDICTMENT
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED DISCOVERY ESSENTIAL FOR THE PREPARATION OF HIS TRIAL. HIS CONSTITUTIONAL SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED
A. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE SURVEILLANCE LOCATIONS
B. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE POSSIBLE PRE-ARREST DIGITAL DISCOVERY
THE PROSECUTOR DEMONSTRATED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
THE STATE DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE DEFENDANT'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THE JURY WAS GIVEN INCOMPLETE JURY INSTRUCTIONS (NOT RAISED BELOW)
DEFENDANT'S EXTENDED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS EXCESSIVE
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards. We affirm.
Defendant moved pre-trial to dismiss the indictment arguing that the State had not produced sufficient evidence before the grand jury and had failed to properly instruct the panel. The trial judge acknowledged that the transcript of the proceedings revealed no instructions at all had been given to the grand jury, but concluded that it was likely the panel had previously received adequate instructions in other cases. Since defendant failed to demonstrate any impropriety in the ...