STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AMEER A. HOLT (16-10-2064, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5939-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AMEER A. HOLT,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted April 28, 2020 – Decided May 29, 2020
Before Judges Yannotti and Hoffman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 16-10-2064.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Cody T. Mason, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief
Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Shiraz Deen, Assistant
Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant pled guilty to second-degree possession of a controlled
dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and
35-5(b)(2), and other charges. Defendant appeals from the judgment of
conviction dated August 10, 2018. He contends the trial court erred by denying
his motion to suppress and resentencing is required. We affirm.
I.
In October 2016, an Ocean County Grand Jury returned Indictment No.
16-10-2064, charging defendant with third-degree possession of a CDS
(Oxycodone), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one); third-degree possession of a
CDS (cocaine), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count two); second-degree possession
of a CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 35-5(b)(2) (count
three); second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1)
(count four); second-degree possession of a firearm while engaging in drug
activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a) (count five); and second-degree certain persons
not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b) (count six). Thereafter, defendant
filed a motion to suppress evidence and a judge conducted an evidentiary
hearing on the motion.
At the hearing, Officer Theodore Maloney, of the Toms River Police
Department (TRPD), testified that on September 21, 2016, he was working at
A-5939-17T4
2
police headquarters when a detective informed him that an anonymous person
had reported that an individual named "Ameer Holt" was distributing narcotics
out of a room at a certain motel in Toms River. The anonymous person also
reported that defendant was driving a red Mazda that might be registered to a
car dealership.
Maloney and other TRPD officers obtained photographs of defendant’s
driver’s license and established surveillance at the motel. Maloney said that on
three separate occasions, he witnessed defendant walking down the motel's
staircase towards a silver Buick LeSabre. He said defendant entered the vehicle
and "fumble[d] around with some things," before he met another person in the
parking lot.
According to Maloney, defendant and the other individual engaged in a
"brief conversation" and "appeared to exchange items[,]" before going their
separate ways. Maloney testified that, based on his training and experience, he
believed defendant’s activity was consistent with the distribution of narcotics.
Maloney further testified that later, defendant entered the vehicle and
drove to another location. Maloney said that, at that location, he observed
defendant engage in what he "believed to be a drug deal" in his vehicle. Police
officers then stopped defendant. He consented to a search of the vehicle and,
A-5939-17T4
3
according to Maloney, he was "more than" cooperative. The police did not find
drugs, firearms, or any other incriminating evidence in the car.
The following day, Jeanine Reiser contacted Maloney. Reiser told
Maloney she was defendant’s fiancée or girlfriend and that she saw the police
stop defendant the previous day. She said she was upset that defendant was
"involved in narcotic activity" and noted that she had reported the Buick stolen
after defendant failed to return the car to her.
Reiser told Maloney that defendant was staying at the motel. He was
using the Buick as a "stash location" for drugs and had a handgun. Reiser
informed Maloney defendant had picked up drugs from an associate in Newark,
and he was driving to the motel in a red Mazda.
The police officers again conducted surveillance of the motel. They
observed a red Mazda enter the motel's parking lot. Defendant was in the
passenger seat and an unknown person was driving the vehicle. The officers
were not wearing their police uniforms, but they were wearing tactical vests with
their badges displayed. The officers approached the Mazda with their guns
drawn and removed defendant from the vehicle.
Officer Andrew Chencharik of the TRPD patted defendant down for
possible weapons. He testified that he felt "a soft object[ or] small plastic bag"
A-5939-17T4
4
in defendant's pocket, which he "believed" was "consistent with the packaging"
of "some type of contraband CDS." According to Chencharik, defendant said
the "bulge" in his pocket "was marijuana and pills."
Chencharik arrested defendant and placed him in the back of a patrol car.
From defendant's person, the officers recovered ten Oxycodone pills, which
were "[b]undled up along with a quantity of a marijuana . . . ." The driver of the
red Mazda consented to a search of the vehicle. The officers searched the
vehicle but found no additional evidence. They released the driver of the Mazda
and he left the area.
The officers then asked a K-9 team to report to the motel parking lot and
have the dog check the Buick for narcotics. The team brought the dog to the
motel. The dog examined the exterior of the car and gave two positive alerts
indicating the presence of narcotics at the front side door on the passenger side
and the rear door on the driver's side. The officers impounded the car and had
the car brought to police headquarters.
Maloney confirmed that Reiser reported that the Buick had been stolen.
He called Reiser and told her that he would either seek a warrant to search the
vehicle or she could come to police headquarters and complete a consent-to-
search form. Reiser went to police headquarters. Maloney explained the
A-5939-17T4
5
consent-to-search form to her. He told her she could be present for the search
and she could stop the search at any time. Maloney gave her time to read the
form. She did not ask any questions or indicate she did not understand the form.
She signed the form.
The officers searched the vehicle and found about seventeen grams of
cocaine in the driver’s side door, two digital scales with CDS residue, a box of
plastic sandwich bags, and drug paraphernalia. After the search, defendant
waived his Miranda rights1 and gave the police a recorded statement. He
admitted that the cocaine and the scales found in the car belonged to him. The
police returned the vehicle to Reiser without further investigation.
On September 23, 2016, Reiser called Maloney. She stated that after she
spoke with defendant in jail, she became suspicious about the contents of her
car. She checked certain panels on the vehicle’s doors. She observed a handgun
behind a panel of the passenger-side door.
Chencharik and three other officers responded to Reiser’s apartment.
Chencharik advised Reiser of her rights and she consented to a second search of
her car. The officers searched the vehicle and removed a gun from behind a
panel on the passenger-side door.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
A-5939-17T4
6
At the suppression hearing, Reiser testified that defendant is her boyfriend
and he is the father of her two-year-old child. Reiser said she and defendant
were not living together in 2016, she did not know where he was living at that
time, and she had no knowledge of his alleged crimes. She denied contacting
the police on September 22 and 23, 2016. She said she never provided the police
with information about drugs or a firearm.
Reiser claimed she only signed the first consent-to-search form because
the police had threatened to arrest her and have the Division of Child Protection
and Permanency contact her. Reiser further testified that a detective called her
and told her the police wanted to search the car a second time. According to
Reiser, the police kept mentioning drugs and guns.
Reiser explained that the police presented her with another consent-to-
search form. She said she signed the form because she did not want any trouble.
She claimed she did not read either form in detail. She said the officers did not
read the form to her. She testified that she did not know she could refuse to sign
the form or that she could stop the search.
On January 2, 2018, the judge filed an opinion and order denying
defendant's motion to suppress. Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to counts one,
two, three, four, and six of the indictment. In exchange for defendant's plea, the
A-5939-17T4
7
State agreed to recommend an aggregate sentence of twelve years of
incarceration with five years of parole ineligibility. The State also agreed to
dismiss count five and two disorderly persons offenses.
On August 3, 2018, another judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate
sentence of twelve years of imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility.
The judge also imposed various fines and penalties. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT
WRONGLY FOUND DEFENDANT WAS
DETAINED RATHER THAN ARRESTED WHEN HE
WAS FRISKED, CONCLUDED THAT THE FRISK
WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON A TIP OF UNPROVEN
RELIABILITY, AND FOUND THE BUICK WAS
LAWFULLY IMPOUNDED BASED UPON A DOG
SNIFF UNSUPPORTED BY PROOF OF
RELIABILITY.
A. Defendant Was Arrested When Three Officers
Blocked In His Car, Approached With Guns Drawn,
Removed Him From The Car, And Patted Him Down.
B. The Officers' Conduct Was Unjustified Because
It Was Based On A Tip Of Unknown Reliability.
C. The State Failed To Show That The Dog Sniff
Was Reliable Such That The Impoundment And Search
Of The Buick Were Illegal.
A-5939-17T4
8
POINT II
THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING BECAUSE THE COURT FAILED
TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS AGGRAVATING
FACTOR FINDINGS AND DID NOT ACCOUNT
FOR DEFENDANT'S REMORSE.
II.
We turn first to defendant's contention that the judge erred by denying his
motion to suppress. The judge found that the officers had reasonable articulable
suspicion that defendant was engaged in, or about to engage in criminal activity,
and therefore lawfully detained and frisked defendant for investigation. The
judge also found that Reiser knowingly and voluntarily consented to the
searches of her vehicle. The judge therefore determined that the officers
lawfully obtained the evidence during defendant's detention and the search of
the car.
When reviewing the denial by the trial court of a motion to suppress
evidence, we will defer to the court's findings of fact "so long as those findings
are supported by sufficient evidence in the record." State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J.
249, 262 (2015). We may disregard those findings of fact only if they are
"clearly mistaken." Ibid. However, the trial court legal conclusions are not
entitled to any special deference and we review those conclusions de novo. Id.
at 263.
A-5939-17T4
9
A. Investigative Stop or Arrest.
Defendant argues that the motion judge erroneously found that the police
lawfully detained him for investigation and frisked him during that encounter .
Defendant contends that the officers transformed the encounter "from a
minimally invasive detention to a de facto arrest." We disagree.
"Warrantless seizures and searches are presumptively invalid as contrary
to the United States and the New Jersey Constitutions." State v. Pineiro, 181
N.J. 13, 19 (2004) (citing State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 7 (1980)). "[S]uch seizures
or searches [must] be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued upon a showing of
probable cause." Ibid. (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7).
"When no warrant is sought, the State has the burden to demonstrate that ‘[the
search] falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant
requirements.’" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Maryland, 167
N.J. 471, 482 (2001)).
Generally, there are three "constitutionally permissible forms of police
encounters with citizens." Id. at 20-21. A "'field inquiry' is the least intrusive
encounter[] and occurs when a police officer approaches an individual and asks
'if [the person] is willing to answer some questions.'" Id. at 20 (second alteration
in original) (quoting State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 510 (2003)).
A-5939-17T4
10
Next, "more intrusive than a field inquiry is . . . an investigative
detention[,]" also known as a Terry stop. Nishina, 175 N.J. at 510 (citing Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). "An encounter escalates from an inquiry to a
detention 'when an objectively reasonable person feels that his or her right to
move has been restricted.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 126
(2002)).
A Terry stop "is valid 'if it is based on specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, give rise to a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity.'" Pineiro, 181 N.J. at 20 (quoting Nishina, 175
N.J. at 510-11). The police must "ha[ve] a 'particularized suspicion' based upon
an objective observation that the person stopped has been [engaged] or is about
to engage in criminal wrongdoing . . . based upon the . . . officer's assessment
of the totality of circumstances with which he is faced." State v. Davis, 104 N.J.
490, 504 (1986).
Furthermore, "[t]he standard of reasonable suspicion required to uphold
an investigative detention is lower than the standard of probable cause necessary
to justify an arrest." Nishina, 175 N.J. at 511 (citing State v. Stovall, 170 N.J.
346, 356 (2002)). Application of the reasonable suspicion standard is "highly
fact sensitive and, therefore, not 'readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set
A-5939-17T4
11
of legal rules.'" Ibid. (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)).
"[A]n investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest when 'the officers'
conduct is more intrusive than necessary for an investigatory stop.'" State v.
Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 478 (1998) (quoting United States v. Jones, 759 F.2d 633,
636 (8th Cir. 1984)). There is no "bright line" for determining when an
investigatory stop constitutes a de facto arrest. Id. at 479. In making that
decision, the court should consider several factors including: the length of the
detention; degree of fear and humiliation endured by the defendant;
transportation or isolation of the defendant; and whether the defendant was
handcuffed or confined to a police car. Ibid.
Here, there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the
judge's finding that defendant was subjected to an investigative stop for
detention and the encounter was not a de facto arrest. The judge found that the
police had reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in, or
about to engage in, criminal activity. Therefore, the officers lawfully stopped
and frisked defendant.
As the judge pointed out in his opinion, on September 21, 2016, the TRPD
received an anonymous tip indicating that defendant was distributing drugs from
a room at a certain motel in Toms River and he was seen driving a red Mazda.
A-5939-17T4
12
The following day, Reiser told Maloney that defendant was distributing drugs
out of her Buick. She said he had picked up drugs in Newark, was on his way
back to the motel in a red Mazda, and had a gun. Reiser corroborated
information provided in the anonymous tip.
Moreover, officers from the TRPD conducted surveillance and observed
defendant arrive in the motel parking lot in a red Mazda. Maloney and
Chencharik approached defendant, drew their weapons, and ordered him to exit
the car. Chencharik frisked defendant to determine if he was armed.
Chencharik detected a bulge in defendant's pocket and defendant admitted
he was in possession of marijuana and pills. The judge found that the officers
had recovered the evidence during the detention and defendant had not been
subjected to a de facto arrest. Defendant was not arrested until after he admitted
he was in possession of a CDS.
Defendant argues, however, that the officers "added to the intrusiveness
of the detention by approaching the car with their badges displayed and guns
drawn." He contends the "cumulative effect" of the officers’ actions made the
encounter more intrusive than a Terry stop. We are convinced, however, that
the record supports the judge's finding that defendant was detained for
investigation and the detention did not constitute a de facto arrest.
A-5939-17T4
13
As the record shows, the detention was no longer than necessary. The
officer frisked defendant because the TRPD had been informed he had a gun.
The officers did not humiliate defendant and there is no indication he faced
extraordinary fear. During the detention, defendant was not handcuffed or
placed in a police vehicle. We conclude the evidence was obtained during an
investigative detention, not a de facto arrest.
B. Reiser's Tip.
Defendant argues that the judge erred by considering Reiser's tip to be the
tip of a "concerned citizen." He contends the State failed to establish Reiser’s
veracity and the basis of her knowledge for the information she provided to the
TRPD. He therefore argues that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop
and frisk him and that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence
recovered from him during the stop. Again, we disagree.
"[A] descriptive tip by an informant may contribute to a reasonable
objective and particularized suspicion to serve as the basis for an investigatory
stop." State v. Richards, 351 N.J. Super. 289, 300 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting
State v. Caldwell, 158 N.J. 452, 467 (1999)). "[T]he reliability of an informant's
tip must be analyzed in light of the totality of the circumstances . . . ." State v.
A-5939-17T4
14
Williams, 364 N.J. Super. 23, 31-32 (2003) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 238 (1983); State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 122 (1987)).
"An informant's 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' are two highly relevant
factors under the totality of the circumstances." State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103,
110 (1998) (citing State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 92 (1998)). However, "[a]
deficiency in one of those factors 'may be compensated for, in determining the
overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other
indicia of reliability.'" Id. at 111 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 233).
Furthermore, "‘[a] report by a concerned citizen’ or a known person is not
‘viewed with the same degree of suspicion that applies to a tip by a confidential
informant’ or an anonymous informant." State v. Amelio, 197 N.J. 207, 212
(2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162
N.J. 375, 390 (2000)). "When an informant is an ordinary citizen, New Jersey
courts assume that the informant has sufficient veracity and require no further
demonstration of reliability." Stovall, 170 N.J. at 362.
We are convinced the record supports the judge's finding that Reiser's tip
consisted of information provided by an ordinary citizen. She identified herself
to the police and they reasonably assumed she was providing reliable
information. Moreover, Maloney testified that Reiser was upset because
A-5939-17T4
15
defendant was using her car to engage in the distribution of narcotics, and her
goal was to stop him from continuing to do so.
Defendant argues that Reiser had "suspect motives" to provide the police
with "highly damaging information" about him. He claims her goal was to retain
possession of the vehicle and that her relationship with defendant "had been
essentially nonexistent for months." He also claims she was motivated by a
belief he was cheating on her. These arguments are entirely without merit.
The police had no reason to suspect that Reiser was providing the
information about defendant for some "suspect" reasons, nor were they required
to question her to determine her motives for informing the police that defendant
was engaged in criminal activity. She was an ordinary citizen who identified
herself. Under the circumstances, the police reasonably assumed the
information she provided was credible.
C. Impoundment of Vehicle.
Defendant argues that the State failed to show that the police lawfully
impounded Reiser's car. He contends the State failed to provide sufficient detail
about the dog’s alerts when he examined the car. He also contends that the State
did not present sufficient information to show the dog had been properly trained
A-5939-17T4
16
and his alerts had been reliable. He therefore contends the State failed to
establish it had probable cause to impound the car. We disagree.
Defendant argues that the State could only establish probable cause based
on the dog's alerts if it produced proof from "controlled settings" that the dog
had performed reliably in detecting the presence of narcotics. In support of that
argument, he relies upon Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013). In this
case, however, the State did not rely solely on the dog's alerts to establish
probable cause to seize the Buick. The police had other information that
established probable cause to impound the vehicle.
As noted, Reiser told the police that defendant had been using the Buick
for the distribution of CDS. The officers conducted surveillance and observed
defendant engaging in actions that were consistent with the distribution of CDS.
Moreover, the police stopped and frisked defendant, and found he was in
possession of a CDS. Reiser also reported that the Buick had been stolen. Thus,
wholly aside from the dog's alerts, the police had probable cause to seize the car.
In addition, the police had independent justification to impound the car
under N.J.S.A. 39:5-47, which provides that the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission:
may authorize the seizure of a motor vehicle operated
over the highways of this State when it has reason to
A-5939-17T4
17
believe that the motor vehicle has been stolen or is
otherwise being operated under suspicious
circumstances and may retain it in the name of the
commission until such time as the identity of ownership
is established . . . .
[Ibid.]
The statute authorizes the police to impound a vehicle they reasonably
believe was stolen. State v. Terry, 232 N.J. 218, 234 (2018). Furthermore,
"[t]he Fourth Amendment . . . is not offended if an automobile is seized or its
operator temporarily detained when a law enforcement officer has a reasonable
and articulable suspicion that the vehicle is unregistered or stolen." Ibid. (citing
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979)).
Defendant argues that the statute does not apply because there is no
evidence the car was "operated over the highways" before the police impounded
it. He asserts that before the officers seized the car, the officers did not
determine that the vehicle was reported stolen. Defendant also asserts he was
not afforded an opportunity to establish that he had lawful possession of the car.
Defendant's arguments are unavailing.
Before they impounded the vehicle, officers at the TRPD were aware the
vehicle had been reported stolen. The police also had information which
suggested that it was being operated under "suspicious circumstances." As
A-5939-17T4
18
noted, Reiser told the police that defendant was using the car for the distribution
of drugs. In addition, the vehicle was at the motel's parking lot. Therefore, the
officers could reasonably assume it had been operated on the State's highways.
Therefore, N.J.S.A. 39:5-47 authorized the police to impound the vehicle.
III.
Defendant argues that resentencing is required. He contends the
sentencing judge failed to explain the bases for his findings of aggravating
factors three and nine. He also contends the judge erred by failing to take into
account his expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.
We apply a "deferential" standard in reviewing a lower court's sentencing
determination. State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014). This court:
must affirm the sentence unless (1) the sentencing
guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and
mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were
not based upon competent and credible evidence in the
record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the
facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly
unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience."
[Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95
N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).]
Here, the sentencing judge found aggravating factors three (the risk that
defendant will commit another offense), six (the extent of defendant’s prior
criminal record and the seriousness of the offenses for which he has been
A-5939-17T4
19
convicted), and nine (the need for deterring defendant and others from violating
the law). N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), (6), (9). The judge stated there was a risk
defendant will commit another offense and he gave that factor "heavy weight"
based on defendant's criminal record.
The judge noted that this was defendant's third conviction of certain
persons not to possess weapons, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b). The judge
pointed out that the legislative policy underlying that statute is clear. As
provided in the statute, certain persons, like defendant, are not to possess
weapons.
The judge observed that in this matter, defendant was found guilty of
possessing a handgun, and he had a prior conviction for possession of a machine
gun. The judge emphasized that there was a need to deter defendant and others
from violating the law. Therefore, the judge gave "heavy weight" to aggravating
factor nine.
The judge also found mitigating factor eleven (defendant’s imprisonment
would entail excessive hardship to himself or his dependents). N.J.S.A. 44-
1(b)(11). The judge noted that defendant has a two-year-old child, and although
he was not paying to support that child, the child would not have her father's
A-5939-17T4
20
companionship and love while he is incarcerated. The judge gave mitigating
factor eleven moderate weight.
The judge found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating
factor. As stated previously, the judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate term
of twelve years of incarceration, with five years of parole ineligibility.
We reject defendant's contention that the judge failed to provide sufficient
reasons for his findings of aggravating factors three and nine. The judge
explained that defendant has a juvenile record, with three violations of
probation. He also has eight municipal court convictions and six prior Superior
Court convictions, which include two prior convictions for certain persons not
to possess weapons. We are convinced that the sentencing judge provided a
sufficient explanation for his findings.
Defendant contends the judge erred by failing to consider his remorse and
acceptance of responsibility. The judge noted, however, that defendant was
"honest and open and forthright and accepted responsibility for [his actions], but
he understands that he’s the architect of this situation and he stands here . . . as
a result of his own conduct." Thus, the judge considered defendant's remorse
and acceptance of responsibility.
A-5939-17T4
21
Defendant also contends resentencing is required to ensure that the judge
did not consider a prior drug offense, which made him eligible for an extended
term under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), as a basis for his findings on aggravating factors
three and nine. However, as we have explained, defendant has an extensive
criminal record, which includes adjudications as a juvenile, municipal court
convictions, and six prior Superior Court convictions. Wholly aside from his
prior conviction for the drug offense, defendant's criminal record provides a
sufficient factual basis for the judge's findings of aggravating factors three and
nine.
We therefore conclude that the judge complied with the sentencing
guidelines and defendant's sentence represents a reasonable exercise of the
court's sentencing discretion. We reject defendant's contention that resentencing
is required.
Affirmed.
A-5939-17T4
22