State v. Middlebrooks
| Decision Date | 02 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-0651-19 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRAVIS J. MIDDLEBROOKS, a/k/a BRANDON ADAMS, TRAVIS L. MIDDLEBROOKS, and BIG BABY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 15, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Passaic County, Indictment Nos. 16-11-0921, 17-08-0804, and 19-01-0006.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (James K Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mark Niedziela, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Rothstadt and Natali.
Defendant Travis J. Middlebrooks appeals from separate judgments of conviction (JOC) following his guilty plea to three controlled dangerous substance-related offenses (CDS). He was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year extended custodial term with a four-year period of parole ineligibility, along with applicable fines and penalties.
Defendant entered his plea following the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he argues:
After considering these arguments against the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm the court's decision to deny defendant's suppression motion and the resulting convictions and sentence. We remand for the limited purpose for the court to amend two of the JOCs to correctly reflect the offenses to which defendant provided a factual basis and pled guilty.
At the suppression hearing, one witness testified, Detective Salvatore Macolino, a twelve-year veteran of the Paterson Police Department. Detective Macolino's experience included working as a patrol officer prior to his assignment to the narcotics division. He received training from the police academy in the recognition of CDSs, participated in additional instruction provided by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and testified he was involved in fifteen to twenty thousand cases involving the recovery of CDSs.
On June 3, 2016, Detective Macolino was patrolling the area of Hamilton and Summer Streets in Paterson with Detective Sergeant Piccelli and Detective Singh. As they were working undercover at the time, all the officers were in plain clothes and in an unmarked vehicle with Detective Sergeant Piccelli driving, Detective Macolino in the front passenger's seat, and Detective Singh in the rear passenger seat.
At approximately 9:00 p.m., Detective Macolino observed defendant standing on Summer Street interacting with an individual through the driver's side window of a black Chevrolet Cruze parked on the right-hand side of the road. He testified that he was approximately fifteen feet away from the vehicle with an unobstructed and well-lit view when he witnessed, based on his training and experience, defendant and the occupant of the Chevrolet Cruze engage in "a hand-to-hand drug transaction." Specifically, Detective Macolino stated he observed defendant exchange "small items, which he had in his pocket . . . for paper currency," which was "crumpled up" or "folded." He described the transactions as "quick," with defendant "cup[ping]" his hand when making the transfer of the items.
Detective Macolino described Summer Street as an area well known to him as he was involved in "numerous narcotic[-]related investigations and arrests "within that area of Paterson. He characterized the area as not only a "well documented high crime and drug trafficking area," but an "open area drug market."
After the police observed the transaction, Detective Sergeant Piccelli pulled the undercover police car in front of the Chevrolet Cruze, at which time Detective Macolino testified defendant was not free to leave. He exited his vehicle and approached the driver side window of the Chevrolet Cruze, which was rolled down. As he advanced, defendant began to walk away.
When Detective Macolino approached the window, he observed "glassine envelop[es] in . . . a bundle form by the center console area." Based on his training and experience, Detective Macolino determined the CDS was bundled heroin, which he explained was "typically [ten] glassines of heroin bound together by a rubber band." He informed Detective Sergeant Piccelli and Detective Singh that he believed there were CDSs in the vehicle and placed the driver under arrest.
Detective Macolino advised defendant he was under arrest. Defendant then fled and ran into the first floor of a nearby building. A short time later, he exited the rear of the building where he was arrested by Detective Sergeant Piccelli. Detective Macolino noted that in addition to the heroin seized from the vehicle, the police recovered $172 from defendant.
On November 10, 2016, defendant was charged under Indictment No. 1611-0921 with: 1) third-degree possession of CDS, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); 2) third-degree distribution of CDS, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3); 3) third-degree distribution of CDS within 1, 000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a); 4) second-degree distribution of CDS within 500 feet of a public housing facility, park, or building, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a); 5) third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1); and 6) fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(2).
Defendant was also charged with multiple additional offenses in two separate indictments related to unrelated incidents. As defendant's plea addressed these charges as well, we briefly detail the offenses in those two charging documents.
On August 15, 2017, defendant was charged under Indictment No. 17-080804 with: 1) third-degree possession of CDS; 2) third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3); 3) third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute within 1, 000 feet of school property; and 4) second-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, park, or building.
Defendant was thereafter charged on January 10, 2019 under Indictment No. 19-01-0006 with: 1) three counts of third-degree possession of CDS; 2) one count of third-degree distribution of CDS; 3) three counts of third-degree distribution of CDS within 1, 000 feet of school property; 4) three counts of distribution of CDS within 500 feet of a public housing facility, park, or building; 5) two counts of third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute; 6) one count of third-degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1); 7) one count of second-degree possession of a weapon while committing certain CDS offenses, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5; 8) one count of fourth-degree possession of a prohibited weapon or device, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(h); 9) one count fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d).
Defendant filed a motion to suppress in which he claimed the initial Terry[1]investigatory stop, subsequent arrest, search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion in a May 20, 2019 order, and in its accompanying oral decision found Detective Macolino a credible witness, characterizing his demeanor as "calm, respectful, cooperative[, ] and non[-]confrontational," and his substantive testimony as "straightforward" with a "clear recollection of the underlying events."
Relying on State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 504 (1986), State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 298 (2014), and United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), the court determined the initial investigatory stop lawful as it was based on Detective Macolino's experience and his "particularized suspicion of criminal activity in considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop." In support of its decision, the court found:
The court also concluded that once defendant began to flee, the police had additional particularized suspicion to detain him.
Next, the court applied the two-step test discussed in State v. Gonzalez, 227 N.J. 77 (2016), and determined the seizure of the heroin was justified under the plain view doctrine. The court explained that Detective Macolino was "lawfully . . . in an area where he observed and seized" the "bundles of heroin" through the open window of the vehicle.
Alternatively the court concluded the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. In this regard, the court found as Detective Macolino approached the vehicle he "observed the bundles" and this ...
To continue reading
Request your trial