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. William Jackson

January 10, 2013

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
WILLIAM JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 07-10-1675.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 16, 2012

Before Judges Harris and Hoffman.

Defendant William Jackson appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress, the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and his sentence of five-years imprisonment, with three years of parole ineligibility.

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

POINT I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. JACKSON'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE POINT II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. JACKSON'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA POINT III THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED A MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE ON MR. JACKSON (NOT RAISED BELOW)

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

We first consider the suppression motion. The State introduced the following evidence. On June 8, 2007, at approximately 7:10 p.m., Detective Keith Ludwig of the Jersey City Police Department responded to an address on Oxford Avenue after receiving a call for assistance from the Narcotics Unit. At the scene, Officer Ray Weber informed Detective Ludwig "there w[ere] drug sales coming out of the location[.]" Outside of the home, Detective Ludwig spoke with defendant's father, who advised him that defendant lived in the home and was the person the police were seeking. Detective Ludwig then asked defendant's mother and father if they would consent to a search of their home. They invited the officers inside the home to discuss the request.

Once inside the home, Detective Ludwig asked defendant's parents if they would "sign a consent to search . . . [defendant's] bedroom, if they had access to it." They stated that they had access to the bedroom and agreed to the search. According to Detective Ludwig, he prepared a "consent to search form" and advised defendant's mother she had the right to refuse the search. Defendant's mother initialed next to a spot on the form that indicated she had a right to refuse, then signed the form.

Thereafter, defendant's mother led Detective Ludwig and other officers to defendant's bedroom. In the bedroom the officers found a knife, two cell phones, and a "hide-a-key," which contained what looked like Phencyclidine (PCP). The officers later recovered three more bags appearing to contain the same substance. Testing later confirmed the substance in the bags was PCP.

On October 15, 2009, a Hudson County grand jury returned a four count indictment, charging defendant with unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (count one); possession of PCP, in a quantity less than ten grams, with the intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(7) (count two); distribution of PCP, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(7) (count three); and preventing an officer from effecting a lawful arrest, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(2) (count four).

In arguing the motion to suppress, defense counsel contended that Detective Ludwig's timeline of events is not credible and even if the consent to search were valid, the police did ...


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.