On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 10-03-0136.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted: October 31, 2012
Before Judges Axelrad and Haas.
On March 10, 2010, defendant Joseph Lazos was charged in superseding Cumberland County Indictment No. 10-03-0136 with third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2a(1) (count one); third-degree theft of a motor vehicle, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) (count three); third-degree conspiracy to commit burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:l8-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count five); third-degree conspiracy to commit theft of a motor vehicle, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2a(2) (count seven); third-degree attempted theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(1) (count nine); third-degree conspiracy to commit theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3 and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count eleven); and fourth-degree hindering, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(2) (counts thirteen and fourteen).*fn1
Judge Benjamin C. Telsey denied defendant's pretrial motion to sever counts one, three, five, and seven from counts nine and eleven, and to have counts nine and eleven severed from counts thirteen and fourteen. On September 30, 2010, defendant was convicted by a jury of counts five, seven, nine, eleven, and thirteen, and acquitted of counts one, three, and fourteen. On November 18, 2010, the judge found defendant eligible for a discretionary extended term under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3a. The judge sentenced defendant to a flat nine-year term on count five, conspiracy to commit burglary; a concurrent nine-year term on count seven, conspiracy to commit theft of a motor vehicle; a concurrent nine-year term on count nine, attempted theft; and a concurrent eighteen-month term on count thirteen, hindering. Count eleven was merged into count nine. This appeal ensued.
On appeal, defendant argues:
THE COURT COMMIT[T]ED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER COUNT NINE FROM THE REMAINING COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT.
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED AS THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT DENIED DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS.
THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF ...