On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 06-04-0531.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued September 21, 2010
Before Judges Wefing, Payne and Koblitz.
Defendant, Gibril Bangura, appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual assault on a thirteen-year-old girl, S.C., N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c (Count One), third-degree endangering the welfare of S.C., N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a (Count Two), fourth-degree criminal sexual contact with S.C., N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b (Count Three), and third-degree endangering the welfare of S.C.'s nine-year-old brother, J.K., N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a (Count Five). He was found not guilty of second-degree sexual assault on J.K., N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b (Count Four). Defendant was also found guilty of a violation of probation (VOP) as the result of his criminal sexual acts. A sentence was imposed of seven years on Count One, a concurrent sentence of four years on Count Two, a concurrent sentence of one year on Count Three, and a consecutive sentence of five years on Count Five with a two-andone-half year period of parole ineligibility. Parole supervision for life was imposed, and defendant was found to be subject to Megan's Law. A consecutive sentence of one year was imposed on the VOP. Defendant has appealed his conviction and sentence.
On appeal, defendant raises the following issues through counsel:
DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE WAS NOT A KNOWING VOLUNTARY WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AS PROVIDED FOR IN MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
[J.K.'s] HEARSAY STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT SEVERING THE INDICTMENT INTO TWO SEPARATE TRIALS.
THE VERDICT ON COUNT FIVE MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE DICTATES OF STATE v. GREY, 147 N.J. 4 (1996).
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCES WERE EXCESSIVE
1. THE SENTENCE ON INDICTMENT NO. 06-04-00531-I WAS EXCESSIVE.
2. THE SENTENCE ON THE VIOLATION OF PROBATION ON A-539-12-03 WAS EXCESSIVE.
3. THE RESTITUTION ORDER VIOLATED N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2(b).
In a pro se brief, defendant additionally argues that endangering the welfare of a child, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), requires that the actor engage in sexual conduct with the knowledge that it would impair or debauch the morals of the child victim and that he did not admit to such knowledge at the time of the offense.
The record discloses that defendant was the neighbor of S.C., age thirteen, and her brother, J.K., age nine. Defendant was twenty-five years of age at the time of the incidents, which occurred in February 2006. Shortly after S.C. and J.K. moved to Plainsboro with their mother, they came in contact with defendant, and soon became friendly with him. During the month of February 2006, defendant fondled S.C.'s breasts and vagina and attempted to penetrate her and, while the girl was at defendant's apartment, he displayed in plain sight the pornographic covers of DVDs and videos and a full-sized, blow-up sex doll named Evelyn. J.K. likewise saw the pornographic DVD and video covers and doll. Additionally, defendant told J.K. in ...