STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARRELL K. RAINEYÂ (14-02-0402 and 14-02-0403, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3141-15T4

Defendant Darrell K. Rainey was tried in a bifurcated jury trial and convicted of: second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun; third-degree possession of heroin; fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm; obstruction of the administration of law; and second-degree certain-persons-not-to-possess-a-firearm.
Police approached Rainey during a field inquiry; an officer saw a bulge in Rainey’s hoodie, asked to pat him down, and Rainey refused and fled.
An officer testified Rainey tossed a handgun and a drugstore bag while fleeing; the officer recovered the gun and the bag, which contained heroin and dental products.
Rainey admitted running but denied possessing the gun or drugs, claiming the bulge was a cell phone and that the bag he dropped did not contain heroin.
The jury credited the officers’ testimony and convicted; Rainey was sentenced to an aggregate ten-year term with five years parole ineligibility.
On appeal Rainey challenged (1) that the convictions were against the weight/insufficient evidence and (2) that the sentencing statement of reasons was faulty. The court affirmed but remanded to correct ministerial errors in the written judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/weight of the evidence that Rainey possessed the gun and drugs	State: Officers observed Rainey toss the gun and bag; recovered items linked to him; evidence supports conviction	Rainey: Items were not proven to be his; verdict against weight/insufficient evidence	Affirmed. Defendant did not move for new trial (procedural bar); on the merits the officers’ testimony was sufficient and the jury rationally credited it.
Sentencing statement of reasons and propriety of sentence	State: Sentencing was within discretion; State recommended the joint ten-over-five term	Rainey: Court’s statement of reasons was faulty and requires resentencing	Affirmed. Although the oral statement could be more detailed, findings were supported by competent credible evidence; sentence not shocking.
Clerical errors in judgments of conviction	State: Judgment should reflect actual sentence imposed (no extended term) and note concurrency	Rainey: Written judgments misstate an extended-term statute and omitted concurrency language	Remanded. Correct judgments to reflect the oral sentence (remove extended-term reference and note concurrent sentences).

State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (discusses review standard for motions for new trial based on weight of the evidence)
State v. Smith, 262 N.J. Super. 487 (rule permitting relaxation of procedural bar in interest of justice)
State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317 (deferential appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (trial courts must give clear and detailed statement of reasons for sentence)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (sentencing standard that findings must be supported by competent credible evidence)
State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (sentence will be vacated if it shocks the judicial conscience)
State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (discussion on use of arrests/charges in assessing deterrence; noted in opinion as decided after sentencing)
State v. Pohlabel, 40 N.J. Super. 416 (oral sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)