STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LARRY AUSTIN (11-03-0410, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5132-14T4

Background

Defendant Larry Austin was arrested on an arrest warrant after allegedly robbing three people at gunpoint—two were injured and one was fatally shot. He later pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter and two counts of first-degree armed robbery.
Police arrested and Mirandized Austin at a convenience store and transported him to his apartment building in a police vehicle. His mother spoke with him at the vehicle.
Police then accompanied Austin’s mother into the shared apartment, obtained her verbal and written consent to search (she was on the lease), and conducted a warrantless search. Items seized included stained jeans in the common kitchen and evidence in the bedroom shared by defendant and his brother.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing police should have asked him (the suspect present) for consent rather than relying on his mother’s consent. The trial court denied the motion after a three-day evidentiary hearing.
Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea and was sentenced to an aggregate 44-year term with 85% parole ineligibility (consecutive: 24 years for manslaughter + two 10-year robbery terms). He appealed suppression denial and sentence as excessive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrantless search by consent	State: mother had authority as a co-resident and gave voluntary, knowing consent to search entire apartment.	Austin: as the arrested suspect present at scene, police should have asked him for consent rather than relying on his mother; her consent invalid as to his private areas.	Search was valid: mother had common authority, consent was voluntary and knowing, no coercion, and Matlock/Randolph/Lamb principles allow third-party consent here.
Effect of brother refusing to sign consent form	State: post-hoc refusal did not invalidate mother’s prior consent or ongoing search.	Austin: brother’s later refusal undermines validity of the search of shared bedroom.	Held: brother’s after-the-fact refusal did not affect the valid consent already given by the mother.
Suppression remedy scope (items seized in common areas and bedroom)	State: items in common areas and bedroom properly seized under mother’s consent.	Austin: items in bedroom and common areas should be suppressed because he was a present suspect and objecting co-occupant.	Held: items admissible—jeans in common area and items in bedroom were within mother’s authority and defendant assumed risk by leaving items in common/shared spaces.
Sentence length and consecutive terms	State: sentence within plea understanding; consecutive sentences appropriate given separate victims and independent objectives.	Austin: sentence exceeded plea expectations and was excessive; robberies should have been treated as one incident to reduce consecutive exposure.	Held: sentence affirmed—court properly applied Yarbough factors, found aggravating factors, multiple victims justified consecutive sentences, and no abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party common authority can validate consent to search)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (present objecting co-occupant can invalidate third-party consent)
State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300 (third-party consent upheld where exit of potential objector was not designed to defeat objection)
State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (person must have knowledge of right to refuse consent)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (standard of review for suppression factual findings)
State v. Miller, 159 N.J. Super. 552 (common authority and mutual use test)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (factors for imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (standards for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413 (multiple victims factor supports consecutive sentences)
State v. Molina, 168 N.J. 436 (multiple victims especially favors consecutive terms)