On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 06-08-1150.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes, Ashrafi and Nugent.
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Defendant, Adam Maskell, appeals from his conviction and sentence for various drug offenses and terroristic threats. He also challenges the order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home by the police officers who executed a "no-knock" search warrant. We affirm.
On August 2, 2006, an Ocean County grand jury charged defendant with second degree possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2) (count one); third degree possession of a CDS, cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (counts two, five and eight); third degree possession with intent to distribute a CDS, cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3) (counts three, six and nine); third degree distribution of a CDS, cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3) (counts four, seven and ten); and third degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a) (count eleven).
After the trial court denied defendant's motions to suppress evidence seized from his home and evidence resulting from electronic intercepts, defendant pleaded guilty to all counts of the indictment. On April 24, 2009, after appropriate mergers, the court sentenced defendant to a six-year term of imprisonment on count one, three concurrent four-year terms of imprisonment on counts four, seven and ten, and a consecutive three-year term of imprisonment on count eleven, resulting in an aggregate sentence of nine years. The court also imposed appropriate fines and penalties.
On August 7, 2009, the trial court denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence, and issued a conforming order on August 12, 2009. On appeal defendant argues:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE . . . PURSUANT TO A NO-KNOCK WARRANT AS THE NO-KNOCK WARRANT WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE MUST BE SUPPRESSED AS THE NO-KNOCK WARRANT WAS INVALID IN THAT THE AFFIDAVIT PREPARED IN SUPPORT OF THE WARRANT CONTAINED MATERIAL OMISSIONS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT INVESTIGATOR VANDEZILVER HAD CONDUCTED AN UNDERCOVER PURCHASE OF CDS FROM DEFENDANT ...