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. Nafisah A. Tucker

August 19, 2011

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
NAFISAH A. TUCKER, A/K/A NAFISAH TUCKER, A/K/A TAMIA CURRY, A/K/A NATISHA JONES, A/K/A LISA A. TALLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment Nos. 10-02-0442 and 10-05-1084.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued August 9, 2011

Before Judges Waugh and Koblitz.

Defendant Nafisah A. Tucker was charged by an Atlantic County Grand Jury in Indictment No. 10-02-0442 with third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)(d). She was also charged in Indictment No. 10-05-1084 with fourth-degree engaging in prostitution, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1b(1), having already been convicted of prostitution, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1c(4). She entered a negotiated plea of guilty to both indictments. The theft charge was amended to a fourth-degree charge, and her custodial sentence was limited to concurrent sentences of 365 days in state prison. She received the maximum sentence under the plea agreement.

On October 18, 2009, in Caesar's Casino/Hotel in Atlantic City, defendant stole two slot machine vouchers worth more than $200 from the victim's pocket while her co-defendant, Kenyeta Bennett, distracted him. Defendant admitted that, on April 8, 2010, she "offer[ed] a sexual favor in exchange for money," having previously been convicted of prostitution.

She appeals her sentence of 365 days in prison imposed without explanation regarding the parole consequences of a 365-day sentence as opposed to a 364-day sentence, as well as the imposition of restitution of $1206 without an ability-to-pay hearing. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT I

BECAUSE A SENTENCE OF 365 DAYS HAS SUCH DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT PAROLE CONSEQUENCES THAN A SENTENCE OF 364 DAYS, THE WARNINGS AND ADVISORIES REQUIRED UNDER STATE V.

KOVACK ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT PLEA. EQUALLY, BECAUSE OF THAT DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE, THE JUDGE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CLEARLY STATE ON THE RECORD HIS REASONS FOR IMPOSING A 365 DAY SENTENCE RATHER THAN A 364 DAY SENTENCE.

POINT II

BY IMPOSING A STATE PRISON SENTENCE RATHER THAN A COUNTY JAIL SENTENCE, THE JUDGE ENSURED THAT MS. TUCKER WOULD BE SENT FAR FROM HER FAMILY AND YOUNG DAUGHTER AND THE ...


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.