STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ENZO R. PENA(13-04-1041, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0350-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ENZO R. PENA,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted June 6, 2017 – Decided June 27, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment
No. 13-04-1041.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Al Glimis, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, and Cody T. Mason, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
briefs).
Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (John C. Tassini,
Assistant Prosecutor, and Samuel Marzarella,
Chief Appellate Attorney, on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Enzo R. Pena pled guilty to first-degree leading a
narcotics network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3, second-degree possession of
a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and five
counts of second-degree employing a juvenile to distribute drugs,
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty
years in prison, ten years to be served without parole. He appeals
from the conviction, limited to the denial of his suppression
motion.
Defendant's counseled brief presents the following point of
argument:
THE COURT'S ORDER DENYING SUPPRESSION OF
EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT AND THE NEW JERSEY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED.
Defendant also filed a pro se supplemental brief which does
not present any points of argument, but which also contends that
the suppression motion should have been granted.1
Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable
standards, we find that defendant's counseled and pro se appellate
arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
1
To the extent that defendant's pro se brief implies that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address
the issue. Any such claims may be raised in a petition for post-
conviction relief. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 460 (1992);
State v. Sparano, 249 N.J. Super. 411, 419 (App. Div. 1991).
2 A-0350-15T1
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm for the reasons
stated by Judge Rochelle Gizinski in her thorough oral opinion
placed on the record on May 9, 2014. We add these brief comments.
The affidavit supporting the warrant application was based
on detailed information, including: citizen complaints about
defendant's drug selling activities; two controlled buys carried
out by a confidential informant; and recent reports from two
individuals who sought police protection because defendant had
threatened to kill them during a disagreement over drug sales.
Those individuals described to the police defendant's drug dealing
activities in detail. One of the individuals, a juvenile, also
showed the police a text message, sent from defendant's known cell
phone number, threatening to torture and kill the juvenile and his
family. We agree with Judge Gizinski that, based on the totality
of the circumstances, there was probable cause to issue a warrant
authorizing the police to install a Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) tracking device on defendant's car. See State v. Keyes, 184
N.J. 541, 556-57 (2005).
Affirmed.
3 A-0350-15T1