State v. Rawls
| Decision Date | 02 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-4838-18 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DARYEL L. RAWLS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued October 6, 202
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Ocean County, Indictment No. 11-06-1109.
Robert Carter Pierce argued the cause for appellant.
William Kyle Meighan, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor argued the cause for respondent (Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney; Samuel Marzarella, Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan, on the brief).
Before Judges Accurso, Firko and Natali.
Following a jury trial, defendant Daryel L. Rawls was convicted of second-degree conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:5-2 (count one); first-degree leading a narcotics trafficking network N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3 (count two); second-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(2) (count three); and second-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(2) (count four).
The court sentenced defendant on counts one, three and four to a concurrent ten-year custodial term with five years of parole ineligibility, and a life term with twenty-five years of parole ineligibility on count two. The court further ordered counts one, three and four to run consecutive to count two resulting in an aggregate life sentence, with thirty years of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
For the reasons that follow, we reject all of defendant's challenges to his convictions but remand for the court to supplement its findings under State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), including an explicit statement regarding the overall fairness of defendant's consecutive sentences consistent with State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (2021).
Defendant was arrested on October 17, 2010 following a large-scale narcotics investigation conducted by the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office (OCPO). The investigation originated based on information received from a confidential informant that defendant was transporting large quantities of heroin into the County for distribution. In September 2010, the OCPO obtained wiretap warrants for two cellular phones belonging to defendant.
Pursuant to the warrants, officers recorded and reviewed calls and text messages from defendant's phones. During these communications, officers determined defendant, at times, used coded language later identified as the "Supreme Alphabet" or "Supreme Mathematics," to discuss the sale and distribution of drugs.
On October 16, 2010, defendant and a former co-defendant, Tyleek Boyce, spoke on the phone regarding an imminent sale of thirty bricks of heroin from Boyce to defendant, as well as future sales between the two. Defendant coordinated with Boyce for the exchange to occur the following day, and supplied him with his address, 726 Albert Avenue in Lakewood.
On the morning of October 17, 2010, defendant and Boyce communicated via text messages to coordinate the previously discussed sale and delivery of heroin. Specifically, defendant texted Boyce "make sure it[']s all [C.O.D.]," to which Boyce responded "Yup20?" At around 11:00 a.m., defendant communicated with another former co-defendant, Jafar Lewis, and informed Lewis he had just been supplied with C.O.D. brand heroin.
Also on that day, due to the ongoing investigation, 726 Albert Avenue was under surveillance by members of the OCPO. An OCPO detective sergeant observed a Nissan Ultima leave 726 Albert Avenue and drive onto the Garden State Parkway around the time of defendant and Lewis' communication. The detective sergeant contacted the New Jersey State Police to conduct a motor vehicle stop of the Nissan. At approximately 11:20 a.m., a state trooper stopped the Nissan and identified its occupants as Charmyne Bull and Boyce. Bull consented to a search of the vehicle which resulted in the seizure of telephones, a small amount of marijuana, Boyce's driver's license, and $2,980 in cash. Meanwhile, the OCPO sought and obtained search warrants for defendant's residence and vehicle, which were executed approximately an hour later resulting in the seizure of a scale, $4,593 in cash, twenty bricks of heroin stamped "C.O.D.", one ounce of cocaine, and his wallet.
Defendant was arrested and later indicted along with twenty-three other individuals, including Boyce and Lewis. At a plea cutoff hearing on May 16, 2016, defendant rejected the State's final plea offer and stated he intended to proceed to trial. The court accordingly informed defendant of the trial date, both verbally and in writing, and stated it would proceed "whether [defendant] [was] here or not."
In July 2016, defendant was erroneously released from the State's custody after reaching his maximum sentence related to a prior indictment, despite a detainer related to this matter. Following his release, defendant fled the State. Accordingly, from July 2016, until his apprehension on November 12, 2018, defendant was absent from the remaining pretrial proceedings, as well as trial. Defendant's counsel filed an application to be relieved as his counsel in February 2017 based on defendant's nonappearance and counsel's health issues, which the court denied. In the weeks leading up to trial, all remaining co-defendants pled guilty.
On March 2 and March 8, 2017, the court conducted Driver[1] hearings to address the admissibility and content of the wiretapped calls. Defendant's counsel raised minimal objections to the content of the calls, only requesting deletions of references to defendant wearing an ankle bracelet. Following the parties' agreement on this point, the court determined the fifty-one recorded sessions could be admitted into evidence at trial, subject to the State laying a proper foundation. At trial, the State introduced the fifty-one recorded sessions and their accompanying transcripts into evidence during the testimony of several of the State's witnesses, including lead investigator Detective Anthony Sgro, and former co-defendants Richard Corry, Edward Nivison, Natasha Story, and Joseph Noumair, all without objection.
Detective Sgro testified at trial regarding the underlying investigation and stated as a result of the wiretap investigations, the OCPO identified other individuals "involved in the [controlled dangerous substance (CDS)] conspiracy." In conjunction with a chart, identified as S-44, Detective Sgro described those individuals and their roles in the trafficking network. He explained Boyce, "was identified as one of the suppliers of heroin to [defendant]"; Wesley Walker "was identified as a distributor of cocaine and heroin to [defendant]"; Lewis and Jimmy Reed "[worked] for [defendant]" as he would "supply both with heroin and then they would return the profits to [defendant]"; Natasha Story and Fadiya Story "were provided with heroin by [defendant] to distribute to other people"; Joseph Noumair "was provided with heroin by [defendant], and then would return profits to [defendant]"; Eddie Nivison "purchase[d] quantities of heroin and then distribute[d] to other people"; Adalberto Vega was "suppl[ied] heroin [from defendant]" and he would "supply [to] other people"; Carroll Hill "would purchase heroin and distribute to others"; Richard Corry "would [purchase heroin and distribute to others]"; and Russell Dunn "was a customer of [defendant]."
Further, Detective Sgro testified he and other OCPO members identified those individuals through "law enforcement databases, surveillance during the investigation, in conjunction with telephone calls and text messages that would put a particular subject at a place and time." Throughout the detective's testimony, recordings of the intercepted calls were played for the jury with Detective Sgro identifying the aforementioned individuals on each respective call.
During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Detective Sgro regarding the Supreme Alphabet and Supreme Mathematics. Specifically, defendant's counsel inquired into his experience deciphering coded messages while monitoring intercepted calls. The detective maintained he was "not an expert," in either the Supreme Alphabet or Supreme Mathematics, but to his knowledge its use originated from a prison gang, for the purpose of "thwart[ing] law enforcement."
The State also called Detective Casey Long as an expert witness. During the State's...
To continue reading
Request your trial