NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 15, 2012
Before Judges Payne and Hayden.
Defendant, Carlton Ray Goldsboro, appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for second-degree possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b and his sentence of nine years in custody with a five-year period of parole ineligibility. On appeal, he raises the following arguments through counsel:
DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1, PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY THE PREJUDICIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WHICH IMPROPERLY INFORMED THE JURY THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO BEING IN A CLASS OF PERSONS FORBIDDEN FROM OWNING A FIREARM (Not Raised Below).
THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO EXCUSE A SITTING JUROR AFTER SHE REVEALED THAT SHE HAD SOCIALIZED WITH MEMBERS OF THE VINELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT THEREBY VIOLATING DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL (Not Raised Below).
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO MAKE TIMELY OBJECTIONS AND STIPULATED TO DEFENDANT BEING A "CERTAIN PERSON" NOT TO OWN A FIREARM, THEREBY DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
A. Defense Counsel Failed to Object to the Prosecutor's Leading Questions Posed to The State's Witness.
B. Defense Counsel Severely Prejudiced Defendant By Stipulating to the Defendant Being in a Class Of "Certain Persons" Not to Own a Handgun.
C. Defense Counsel Further Prejudiced Defendant By Failing to Call Detective Gami Cruz to Testify During His Case-in-Chief.
THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE, NECESSITATING REDUCTION.
In addition, defendant submitted a pro se supplemental brief, in which he argued:
THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE SEARCH PURPORTEDLY INCIDENT TO THE ARREST WERE UNLAWFUL, AND THE WEAPON FOUND WAS INADMISSIBLE AS THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
THE PROSECUTOR'S LEADING QUESTIONS POSED TO THE STATE'S WITNESS AMOUNTED TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND DENIED DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.