STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PEDRO ANAYA (18-10-0825, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1171-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PEDRO ANAYA,
a/k/a SKIPPY,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted May 2, 2022 – Decided July 29, 2022
Before Judges Fasciale and Sumners.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 18-10-0825.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Marc A. Festa, Chief Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After pleading guilty to second-degree possession of cocaine with intent
to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 35-5(b)(2), and third-degree possession
of cocaine with intent to distribute within one thousand feet of school property,
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, defendant Pedro Anaya appeals the Law Division order
denying the motion by co-defendants Elizabeth Sanchez and Hiram Ramos and
him to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant and their request
for a Franks1 hearing. He also challenges the order denying reconsideration.
We affirm.
Before us, he raises the following single point argument:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING A
FRANKS HEARING BECAUSE DEFENDANT
MADE A SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY
SHOWING THAT THE AFFIDAVIT
SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE SEARCH
WARRANT CONTAINED MATERIAL[LY]
FALSE STATEMENTS.
Defendant maintains he was entitled to a Franks hearing because there was
a "substantial preliminary showing" that the affidavit Paterson Police Detective
Keith Calderon submitted to obtain the search warrant contained materially false
statements regarding Sanchez's cell phone number that was allegedly used to
setup drug buys. The affidavit, according to defendant, "rested on the central
1
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
A-1171-19
2
claim that police had recently arranged for the [confidential informant] to make
two controlled [drug] purchases from defendants" and stated "that he personally
overheard the [informant] plan the drug sales with defendant . . . by calling a
particular phone number," which the informant explained to Calderon was the
"method of operation" he used to purchase drugs from defendants for several
months.
Defendant argues he "presented subpoenaed telephone records showing
that defendants did not have access" to the phone number used for the drug buys
and "therefore the controlled buys could not have occurred as described in the
warrant affidavit." He claims that though Sanchez was the previous subscriber
for the listed phone number, "her account [for that number] was deactivated five
months before the alleged controlled drug buys in July 2018." Subpoenaed
phone records evinced that "the cell number that the warrant affidavit claimed
defendants had used to arrange drug sales with the [informant] for 'several
months' before July 8, 2018[,] was, in fact, completely inactive between
February 9, 2018 and June 8, 2018." Despite Calderon stating in his affidavit
that he had personally heard the informant and defendant speak twice when the
A-1171-19
3
informant called the cell phone number, telephone records revealed the cell
phone being registered to "Derek Jeter." 2
At the motion for reconsideration, the judge was provided public records
confirming Jeter as a real person and that his name was not a pseudonym, as he
corroborated his identity when contacted at the number by the State and defense
investigators, stating "he had no connection to any of the defendants."
Defendant argues this evidence intimates that the details of the drug buys
described in the affidavit "were . . . fabricated based on stale information
regarding defendants, including a number that Sanchez had deactivated over five
months prior to the warrant application." Consequently, defendant asserts the
judge erred by "making speculative findings to explain the discrepancy between
the warrant affidavit and defendant's proffered evidence."
We incorporate by reference the factual summary and legal analysis set
forth in State v. Elizabeth Sanchez, No. A-1572-19 (September 27, 2021),
wherein we rejected Sanchez's similar arguments that the motion judge abused
her discretion in denying defendants a Franks hearing. We concluded:
[Sanchez] failed to make a substantial preliminary
showing that the inclusion of the cellphone number in
the warrant affidavit was a material falsity. And even
2
This was not Derek Jeter, the former New York Yankees and Hall of Fame
baseball player.
A-1171-19
4
if defendant satisfied her preliminary showing, which
is not the case, and assuming further that the
information was then excised from the affidavit, we
conclude that the remaining information contained in
the search warrant affidavit established sufficient
probable cause. We, therefore, see no abuse of the
motion judge's discretion by denying a Franks hearing.
[Id. at 15.]
Our holding in Sanchez applies here, and thus we reject defendant's
contentions for the same reasons expressed therein. Hence, it is unnecessary to
specifically address defendant's arguments.
Affirmed.
A-1171-19
5