STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHARON BOWEN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES GADSON (09-05-0914, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-1892-14T2/A-1909-14T3

Background

In 2009 an Ocean County grand jury indicted James Gadson and Sharon Bowen on multiple CDS offenses based largely on wiretapped cellular-phone communications and related evidence. Gadson faced first- and second-degree charges; Bowen was charged in the conspiracy count and later pled to a reduced offense.
Police intercepted communications after obtaining a wiretap order and communications-data warrant; defendants moved to suppress the recorded conversations and sought a minimization hearing. The trial court granted partial suppression for privileged communications but otherwise denied suppression.
Both defendants entered negotiated guilty pleas without making conditional pleas reserving the right to appeal pretrial evidentiary rulings under Rule 3:9-3(f).
Bowen was sentenced to an 18-month term of probation with a short jail component per her plea agreement; Gadson received an 18-year extended custodial term with nine years parole ineligibility per his plea agreement.
Both defendants appealed, arguing (among other things) minimization violations requiring suppression, insufficiency of the factual basis for Gadson’s plea, excessiveness of Gadson’s sentence, and entitlement to additional jail/gap-time credits.
The Appellate Division affirmed convictions and sentences but remanded to correct Gadson’s judgment to grant 44 days of gap-time credit for time in custody on unrelated municipal matters.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants may appeal denial of wiretap suppression after pleading guilty	Defendants waived appellate review by pleading guilty without a conditional reservation under Rule 3:9-3(f)	Defendants argued suppression rulings were erroneous and should be reviewed	Waiver: guilty pleas (not conditional) bar appellate review of suppression of recorded conversations; appeal not preserved
Remedy for minimization violation in wiretap interceptions	State did not concede total suppression; argued court’s partial suppression was proper	Defendants argued the court’s finding of inadequate minimization required suppression of all intercepted communications	Not considered on appeal (issue waived by unconditional pleas)
Adequacy of factual basis for Gadson’s guilty plea to distribution of cocaine	Factual basis was sufficient: defendant admitted possession/distribution, reviewed lab report confirming cocaine	Gadson claimed equivocal answers left insufficient factual basis to support plea	Plea colloquy (admissions + lab report review) provided an adequate factual foundation; plea upheld
Sentence validity and jail/gap-time credits for Gadson	Sentence followed plea agreement and applicable law; agreed 1813 days credit but conceded omission	Gadson argued 18-year sentence excessive and that he was entitled to additional 44 days gap-time credit for custody March 9–April 22, 2012	Sentence not manifestly excessive; affirmed. Court remanded to correct judgment to add 44 days gap-time credit

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robinson, 224 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 1988) (guilty plea waives issues that could have been addressed pre-plea)
State v. Crawley, 149 N.J. 310 (1997) (guilty plea bars appeal of pre-plea constitutional claims)
State v. Keegan, 188 N.J. Super. 471 (App. Div. 1982) (preserving wiretap suppression issues requires conditional plea under Rule 3:9-3(f))
State v. Perez, 220 N.J. 423 (2015) (plea colloquy must elicit a comprehensive factual basis addressing each element)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (standards for appellate review of sentencing decisions)
State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011) (defendant entitled to jail credits for time served pre-sentence; gap-time credit principles)
State v. Franklin, 175 N.J. 456 (2003) (elements required to establish entitlement to gap-time credits)