State v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 09 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-4848-14T4 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARQUISE HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 Carroll, Mawla and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 13-01-0200.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant Marquise Hawkins appeals his conviction and sentence stemming from his involvement in the armed robbery of four teenage boys that culminated in the shooting death of sixteen-year-old Khalil Williams in Irvington on February 17, 2012. Defendant was seventeen years old when the crimes were committed. While in police custody, accompanied by his mother, defendant gave a statement admitting his involvement in the fatal series of events. On the State's motion, juvenile jurisdiction was waived, and defendant and two cohorts, Azim Brogsdale and Haroon Perry, were indicted and charged with knowing or purposeful murder, felony murder, conspiracy to commit murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, unlawful possession of two handguns, and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose.
Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress his uncounseled statement. On June 20, 2015, following a hearing, the trial court ruled the statement admissible.
Defendant was tried separately. His jury trial lasted seven days and concluded on March 30, 2015, when the jury convicted him of all charges except for possession of one of the two handguns. On May 8, 2015, following certain mergers, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate fifty-five year prison term, with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On appeal, defendant challenges the Family Part order waiving jurisdiction, the denial of his suppression motion, the admissionof certain purported hearsay testimony, and various aspects of his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's convictions but remand for merger of offenses and reconsideration of defendant's sentence.
On September 17, 2012, defendant and his co-defendants were driving through Irvington looking for someone to rob when they saw a group of boys "coming down Orange Ave[nue]." After parking their car "around the corner," Brogsdale and Perry robbed the four boys at gunpoint while defendant waited in the back seat of the car. When one of the victims attempted to flee, defendant yelled to his co-defendants to "get the one in the yellow coat." Brogsdale and Perry then fired their weapons, and defendant witnessed one of the boys "fall on the ground" before they drove off. The victim was sixteen-year-old Williams, who was later pronounced dead as the result of a gunshot wound to his back.
Cash and two cell phones were taken from the robbery victims. Defendant kept one of the phones, and when he returned to his Newark home he "put the phone in [his] top drawer . . . ." Upon suspecting the police might be tracking the stolen phone, defendant hid it in the backyard of a nearby home.
Detective Kevin Green of the Essex County Prosecutor's Office was assigned to investigate the shooting. Before interviewingdefendant, Green obtained permission from defendant's mother, Stephanie Hawkins, who accompanied Green to pick defendant up from school after police first questioned his sister about the stolen phone. Defendant, his mother, and Green then proceeded to an interview room at the Essex County Prosecutor's Office. Both defendant and his mother read and signed a form waiving defendant's Miranda1 rights before defendant was questioned by Green.
In his recorded statement, defendant confessed that he and his accomplices planned to "go robbing" and rode around for approximately six hours before encountering the group of boys on Orange Avenue. Defendant remained in the car while his two accomplices, with guns, robbed the four boys. When one of the victims attempted to run, defendant stuck his head out the car and yelled: "Get the one in the yellow coat." One of defendant's accomplices then began shooting at the victim in yellow. Defendant admitted receiving a cell phone that was taken from one of the victims, and he subsequently led police to the location where it was hidden. Defendant's arrest followed.
Defendant was initially charged as a juvenile in a complaint alleging acts of delinquency that, if committed by an adult, would constitute first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3);second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; and first-degree conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(1).
The State thereafter moved for an order waiving jurisdiction of the Family Part and transferring the case to the Law Division. In support of its motion, the State relied on the following factors under the Attorney General's Guidelines: (1) the nature of the offense committed; (2) the need to deter defendant and other juveniles from committing crimes; (3) the maximum sentence exposure as a juvenile as compared to an adult; and (4) the likelihood of success at trial.
Applying these factors to the present case, the State noted: (1) the offense was death by gunshot wound from a handgun, which was "cruel, heinous, [and] depraved" insofar as the victim "was shot after he was robbed . . . [and] did not resist in any way;" (2) the specific need to deter defendant, as well as the general need to deter other juveniles, from committing such offenses; (3) defendant's estimated maximum sentence exposure as a juvenile would be an aggregate seventeen-year term of confinement, as opposed to defendant's sentence as an adult, a fifty-five year term of imprisonment subject to NERA; and (4) the State'slikelihood of success at trial was sustained by defendant's confession and related police reports.
Following the waiver hearing, in an oral opinion issued on June 25, 2012, the Family Part judge found the State established probable cause with respect to the felony murder and weapons offenses. The judge then entered a memorializing order granting the waiver application.
On January 25, 2013, an Essex County grand jury returned an indictment jointly charging defendant, Brogsdale, and Perry with second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); four counts of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (); first-degree felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3) (count six); first-degree conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)-(2) (count seven); first-degree knowing or purposeful murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)-(2) (count eight); two counts of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (); and second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (count eleven).
The judge conducted a pre-trial hearing on defendant's motion to suppress his statement. The State presented the testimony of Detective Green, while defendant's mother testified on his behalf.In an oral opinion, the judge found Green "credible and reliable." In contrast, the judge found the testimony of defendant's mother "was in fact not credible and certainly not reliable as to what occurred . . . [and] that some of her own testimony even bolstered and supported the testimony of Detective Green and confirmed by" defendant's statement. The judge denied the motion, concluding:
defendant knowingly, freely and voluntarily waived his Miranda [r]ights in the presence of and with the consent of his mother[,] Stephanie Hawkins. It is abundantly clear from the recorded statement, the video of the statement as well as the testimony provided to this [c]ourt during the [e]videntiary [h]earing, that both the defendant and his mother were advised of his rights, were given the appropriate waiver, were given an opportunity to read the waiver, were given [an] opportunity to ask any questions concerning the waiver or the consequences of the waiver and, thereafter, acknowledge[d] their understanding of their rights as well as [the] consequences of their waiver and signed the waiver knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily as testified again by Detective Green and confirmed by the videotape recording of [defendant's] statement.
The judge further found no coercive or threatening tactics were used by law enforcement in obtaining the waiver; defendant's statement was given during the middle of the day when he was not subject to exhaustion or physical punishment; neither defendant nor his mother had a problem reading or understanding the waiver form; and both defendant and his mother appeared "calm andcooperative" throughout the interview. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the judge concluded defendant and his mother had the "requisite level of comprehension" to understand defendant's Miranda rights and made the "uncoerced choice" to waive them. Consequently, defendant's statement was admitted in evidence at the ensuing trial.
The State presented the testimony of numerous witnesses at trial, including various law enforcement officials, forensic specialists, the surviving robbery victims, and Detective Green. Defendant did not testify or present any witnesses.
Pertinent to this appeal, on cross-examination, Irvington Police Officer Tonya...
To continue reading
Request your trial