NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted August 7, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 08-07-1076.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant Kenneth P. Speiser (John Douard, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant Carmini Laloo (Daniel Brown, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent in both appeals, (Brian Uzdavinis, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs).
Before Judges Koblitz and Accurso.
These back-to-back appeals, which we consolidate for purposes of this opinion, arise from a sexual assault perpetrated by three forty-two to fifty-one-year-old individuals against a ten-year-old boy. Following a negotiated plea of guilty, defendant Kenneth P. Speiser and co-defendant Carmini Laloo appeal from their February 4, 2010 and January 29, 2010 convictions, respectively, on a charge of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), for which the judge sentenced Speiser to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment and Laloo to a fourteen-year term, both with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We reject defendants' contention that the judge erred when he denied a joint motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant of the third co-defendant, Peter Lisa's, home. We also reject both defendants' argument that their sentences were excessive. We affirm.
We incorporate here the facts and procedural history related in our unpublished opinion decided after co-defendant Peter Lisa appealed the denial of the same pre-trial motion to suppress evidence that defendants Speiser and Laloo appeal here. State v. Lisa, No. A-3896-09 (App. Div. Apr. 15, 2011), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 371 (2011).
Defendant Speiser raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: SINCE THE SEARCH WARRANT TO SEIZE THE VIDEOTAPES FROM CO-DEFENDANT'S GARAGE WAS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION THAT THEY CONTAINED EVIDENCE OF CRIMES, THE TAPES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS BEING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT.
POINT II: THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. SPEISER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE CONSENT TO SEARCH LISA'S RESIDENCE, WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS.
POINT III: THE FIFTEEN-YEAR SENTENCE, WITH AN 85% PAROLE DISQUALIFIER, WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE, AS IT WAS BASED ON FINDINGS OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS THAT WERE ...