NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued September 9, 2013
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 09-03-0508.
Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., argued the cause for appellant.
Jenny M. Hsu, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Ms. Hsu, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Parrillo and Kennedy.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of second-degree possession of cocaine in a quantity of one-half ounce or more with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and 2C:35-5b(2) (Count One); third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (Count Two); third-degree possession of marijuana in a quantity of one ounce or more with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and 2C:35-5b(11) (Count Three); and fourth-degree possession of marijuana in a quantity of more than fifty grams, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(3) (Count Four).
The judge granted the State's motion to impose a mandatory extended term pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) and, after merging Count Two into Count One, and Count Four into Count Three, sentenced defendant to eleven years' imprisonment, with a forty-two month period of parole ineligibility on Count One, and five years' imprisonment on Count Three, to run concurrently. The appropriate penalties and license suspension were also imposed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
I. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO COMPEL THE STATE TO PROVIDE THE CELL PHONE NUMBER OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, AND ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT A FRANKS HEARING.
A. The Motion Judge Erred in Denying the Defendant a Franks Hearing.
II. THE MOTION JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER SGRO LIED, BECAUSE IF HE DID IT WAS STILL DISCOVERABLE UNDER BRADY V. MARYLAND.
III.THE STATE FILED ITS EXTENDED TERM APPLICATION OUT OF TIME, AND HENCE, THE COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT TO AN EXTENDED TERM.
IV. THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE'S INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE EXPERT WAS PREJUDICIAL AND THAT COMBINED WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION REGARDING HIS ...