Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of New Jersey v. andre Williams

March 10, 2011

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ANDRE WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 07-02-0647.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 6, 2010

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Fasciale.

A grand jury indicted defendant on charges of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1); third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1), b(3); and second-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1. The jury convicted defendant of all charges. At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate nine-year sentence, with a four-year period of parole ineligibility, together with fines and penalties. The sentences imposed not only addressed the three narcotics offenses for which defendant was convicted but an accusation to which he had also pled guilty.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON DRUG TRAFFICKING THAT INCLUDED NOT ONLY GENERAL METHODS OF DRUG DISTRIBUTION BUT ALSO THE OPINION THAT DEFENDANT HAD DISTRIBUTED DRUGS IMPERMISSIBLY INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY. (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT II

DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND . . . DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ADDRESS THIS CONTENTION.

A. DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY HIS FAILURE TO OBJECT TO LEADING QUESTIONS POSED TO THE STATE'S EXPERT AS WELL AS THE PROSECUTOR'S ASSUMPTION OF FACTS NOT ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.

B. DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY HIS FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JUDGE GIVE THE MODEL JURY CHARGE REGARDING PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS.

C. DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION BY HIS FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.