State v. Carter

Full title: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS E. CARTER…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 17, 2019

DOCKET NO. A-0938-17T3 (App. Div. Jul. 17, 2019)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-0938-17T3

07-17-2019

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS E. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 16-07-1225. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected defendant Thomas E. Carter's motion to suppress evidence of heroin found on his person during the course of and following a motor vehicle stop. Thereafter, on June 5, 2017, defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute in a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a). On September 15, 2017, defendant was sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment, subject to a two-year period of parole ineligibility.

Defendant appeals from his conviction. Specifically, he contends his motion to suppress should have been granted on the ground the police who conducted the motor stop violated his constitutional rights to equal protection. After reviewing the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the oral decision issued by the trial court at the conclusion of the suppression hearing, which was conducted on February 1, 2017.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION