STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS A. ESCOBAR (16-02-0148, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0727-17T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CARLOS A. ESCOBAR, a/k/a
CARLOS ALBEIRO ESCOBAR
SANABRIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted February 4, 2019 – Decided February 11, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 16-02-0148.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Fredric M. Knapp, Morris County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Paula C. Jordao, Assistant Prosecutor,
on the briefs).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
This is a direct appeal pursuant to Rule 3:5-7 of a trial court's denial of a
suppression motion following the entry of a guilty plea. We affirm.
Appellant Carlos A. Escobar was one of numerous individuals identified
as suspects during an investigation into the drug distribution network of a man
named J.S.1 Narcotics investigators gathered evidence by court-approved
wiretaps and through the use of an undercover investigator. The undercover
investigator made numerous purchases of cocaine from J.S. The investigation
revealed that J.S. and other individuals, including Escobar, were involved in the
narcotics distribution activities.
The wiretaps intercepted numerous drug-related conversations between
Escobar and J.S., in which Escobar placed orders for cocaine. Surveillance also
revealed several meetings between Escobar and J.S. Also, the intercepted
wiretap conversations included certain "code words," which the undercover
officer himself used successfully in making the purchases from J.S.
The police applied for a search warrant to search an apartment where
Escobar was believed to reside with his girlfriend.
1
We use initials for J.S. in light of the possible continued confidentiality of
materials in the Confidential Appendix.
A-0727-17T3
2
Judge Stuart Minkowitz granted the search warrant. The police executed
the warrant at the premises. They found no cocaine but found four pounds of
marijuana in a suitcase, and $1,850 in cash. Escobar was arrested outside of the
residence, and a search of his person turned up another $1,080 in cash.
The State charged Escobar in a six-count indictment with five narcotics-
related offenses, including second-degree conspiracy to possess cocaine with
intent to distribute it, and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child.
Escobar moved to suppress the fruits of the search. His motion was denied
by Judge Stephen J. Taylor in a comprehensive written decision issued on May
8, 2017. Judge Taylor concluded that the search warrant affidavit satisfied the
elements of probable cause. He found that the State had made enough of a
showing to discern probable cause to believe that Escobar had been involved in
drug activity and there was reason to believe those drugs would be found at his
usual place of residence.
After the suppression motion was denied, Escobar's trial counsel
negotiated a plea agreement with the State, in which Escobar pled guilty to third-
degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
5(a)(1), -5(b)(11). The State applied for and was granted its request for the
A-0727-17T3
3
imposition of an extended-term sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), in light of
Escobar's prior criminal record.
The court imposed a five-year prison sentence with a three-year parole
disqualifier. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. Escobar
than moved for admission to the Drug Court program, which was denied. 2
On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments in his brief:
THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE
WARRANT MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE
THE WARRANT APPLICATION LACKED THE
REQUISITE SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
U.S. CONST., AMENDS. IV, IX; N.J. CONST. (1947),
ART. 1, PAR. 7
A. The Warrant Application Failed To Allege Facts
Sufficient To Support the Crimes Alleged.
B. The Warrant Application Failed to Demonstrate
Probable Cause That the Defendant Was Engaged in
Criminal Activity.
In addition, defendant makes the following arguments in a supplemental
pro se brief:
POINT I
TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO
SUPPRESS THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT
FAILED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE
2
The Drug Court denial is not an issue raised on appeal.
A-0727-17T3
4
THAT DRUGS WOULD BE FOUND THERE OR
THAT APPELLANT LIVED THEREIN.
POINT II
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ENTERTAIN THE
APPELLANT'S MITIGATING FACTORS AND/OR
APPLY THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCING
PURSUANT TO SAID MITIGATING FACTORS
WHICH PREJUDICED THE APPELLATE AND
CONSTITUTED AN EXCESSIVE HARDSHIP
SENTENCE APPELLANTS SENTENCE MUST BE
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Having duly considered these arguments, we affirm the suppression ruling
substantially based on the well-reasoned analysis of Judge Taylor in his lengthy
written opinion. The record demonstrates that the State's warrant application
was based on adequate facts indicating Escobar's involvement in criminal
activity. Defendant failed to surmount his "burden of proof to establish a lack
of probable cause 'or that the search was otherwise unreasonable.'" State v.
Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 427 (2017). The supporting affidavit indicated more than
a single agreement to buy or sell drugs and instead supported a drug conspiracy
utilizing code words. As such, the warrant application did not violate the
"simple agreement" tenets of State v. Roldan, 314 N.J. Super. 173, 182 (App.
Div. 1998).
A-0727-17T3
5
We also reject Escobar's pro se argument contesting his sentence. The
record adequately supported the finding of aggravating factor three (the risk of
re-offense), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), as well as two other aggravating factors.
Given Escobar's multiple prior offenses, including two drug offenses, the
sentence imposed consistent with his plea agreement does not shock the judicial
conscience. State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 607-08 (2010).
All other arguments, to the extent we have not already addressed them,
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0727-17T3
6