NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted July 16, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 11-04-0832.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel, and on the brief).
Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Andrew R. Burroughs, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Ashrafi and St. John.
Defendant Marc A. Olivero appeals from his conviction by a jury and from the court's sentence of five years imprisonment on a single charge of burglary. We affirm.
At about 5:00 a.m. on December 18, 2010, a security guard for a manufacturing company in Newark called the police when he noticed that a chain and padlock on the front gate of the fenced facility had been cut. Minutes later, the police arrived and apprehended defendant and his brother, Gary Olivero, in a pickup truck as they were driving toward the gate inside the fenced facility. In the cargo area of the pickup truck, the police found eleven printing rollers taken from just outside a warehouse building of the facility. According to a representative of the manufacturing company, each roller was valued at about $1000. The police also recovered the front gate padlock from the back of the pickup truck, and inside the cab of the truck, they found bolt cutters.
Defendant and his brother were charged with third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and disorderly persons possession of a burglary tool, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-5. They were tried together on the burglary charge. The jury found them both guilty. At defendant's sentencing hearing, the trial judge reviewed his history of thirty-one prior arrests and four prior indictable convictions and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. The State then dismissed the disorderly persons charge.
On appeal, defendant argues:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL OF THE BURGLARY CHARGE BECAUSE THE PROOFS DID NOT PERMIT A REASONABLE JURY TO FIND THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED ANY PART OF THE ...