STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK GREENÂ (13-06-1139, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1938-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Mark Green (aka Mark/Alton/Altur/Anton Green) entered an open guilty plea to: fourth-degree possession of CDS, third-degree possession with intent to distribute, and third-degree possession with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school.
- Police officer stopped defendant after observing what the officer testified was a right turn without signaling.
- At the suppression hearing, the officer testified he followed the vehicle and saw no signal; defendant argued the stop was illegal because the failure to signal did not plausibly affect traffic.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress; defendant was later sentenced to five years with a three-year parole disqualifier (extended term).
- Defendant contended the stop lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and that the parole disqualifier conflicted with his understanding at plea (he thought it would be 20 months).
- Appellate Division affirmed denial of suppression, explained legal standards for traffic stops and sentencing, and remanded solely to allow defendant to move to withdraw his plea (State conceded remand appropriate because defendant may have believed in a 20-month disqualifier). The panel did not retain jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop based on failure to signal | Stop was lawful because officer observed a turn without signaling, giving reasonable suspicion of a motor-vehicle violation | Stop was unlawful because defendant's failure to signal did not have potential to affect traffic and so did not justify the stop | Denied suppression: officer's observation was credited and failure to signal can affect traffic (including the officer's vehicle), giving reasonable suspicion for a stop |
| Standard of review for suppression | State urged deferential review to trial court fact findings, de novo for legal conclusions | Defendant challenged legal application of reasonable-suspicion standard | Court applied settled standard: factual findings upheld if supported; legal issues reviewed de novo and affirmed denial |
| Sentencing — parole disqualifier after open plea | State argued statutory extended-term parole disqualifier of three years applies to the offense when an extended term is imposed | Defendant argued plea colloquy led him to believe parole disqualifier would be 20 months, conflicting with sentence | Court explained statute mandates three-year disqualifier on extended term; because defendant entered an open plea and may have believed otherwise, remand permitted so he can seek to withdraw plea |
| Remedy / disposition | State agreed remand appropriate to allow plea-withdrawal motion | Defendant sought relief by remand for plea withdrawal or resentencing consistent with plea colloquy | Court remanded to permit defendant to move to vacate plea; did not retain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424 (review standards for suppression and appellate deference)
- State v. Amelio, 197 N.J. 207 (investigatory stop justified by reasonable suspicion, including minor traffic offenses)
- State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (stop valid even if State cannot ultimately prove the motor-vehicle violation)
- State v. Williamson, 138 N.J. 302 (officer's belief about a traffic violation must be objectively reasonable)
- State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (standards and review in sentencing decisions)