State of New Jersey v. Euclide D. Valerio-Guzman

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: A-3453-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3453-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EUCLIDE D. VALERIO- GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. ________________________

Submitted November 13, 2024 – Decided April 17, 2025

Before Judges Gilson and Bishop-Thompson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 18-06-1689.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin S. Finckenauer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Boris Moczula, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Following the denial of his motion to suppress a handgun seized from the

foyer of his apartment building, defendant Euclide Valerio-Guzman pled guilty

to first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1), second-degree

possession of a handgun without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), and first-degree

attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1) and 2C:11-3(a)(1). In accordance with

his plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate twenty-five years'

incarceration subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion to suppress the

handgun. He contends the handgun was unlawfully seized by police and should

have been suppressed because there were no exceptions justifying the

warrantless search and seizure from the foyer of his apartment building.

Defendant also argues for the first time on appeal, the unlawful seizure occurred

from his home based on an observation made while in the courtyard near the

front steps of the apartment building. After reviewing the record in light of the

applicable law, we reject defendant's contention and affirm.

I.

We discern the facts from the record developed during the hearing on the

motion to suppress. The trial court conducted a one-day evidentiary hearing,

during which Irvington Police Department Sergeant Albern Jean-Simon was the

A-3453-22 2 sole witness to testify.1 The court also reviewed photographs of the crime scene

and the police report.

Then-officer Jean-Simon testified that on the mid-morning of March 24,

2018, he responded to a shooting incident at 2 Berkeley Terrace in Irvington. In

less than a minute, he arrived at the scene where he found two females, heavily

bleeding and lying face down in the outside courtyard of the apartment building

with several civilians attempting to render aid. As he attended to the victims, a

witness approached and identified defendant as the shooter. Jean-Simon then

observed the only male, later identified as defendant, sitting alone on the front

steps of 6 Berkeley Terrace and the exterior door to the left of defendant was

"fully open." Sergeant Glenise Wilson responded within "seconds" to the

officer's radio call to headquarters for backup.

The officers approached defendant with their service weapons drawn.

Jean-Simon ordered defendant to the ground and to show his hands. Defendant

complied and was handcuffed and arrested.

Jean-Simon described 6 Berkley Terrace as four apartments with two front

exterior doors. Each exterior door leads into a foyer, which gives access to two

1 At the time of the hearing, Jean-Simon had been promoted to sergeant.

A-3453-22 3 separate apartments on each side of the foyer. As the officers lifted defendant

from the ground in the courtyard after his arrest, Jean-Simon "kind of looked

up" through the open left exterior door into the empty illuminated foyer and

"saw a [black and silver] gun on the radiator." He reported his observation to

Sergeant Wilson and notified headquarters. Thereafter, the gun was seized by

the Essex County Prosecutor's Office (ECPO).

Defendant was indicted on seven counts, including first-degree murder,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), various gun charges, and first-degree attempted murder.

He then moved to suppress the handgun found in the apartment building's foyer.

At the motion hearing, defendant's sole argument was that because Jean-Simon

did not state in the police report that the door was open, the door must have been

closed, and thus, the gun was not in plain view and should be suppressed.

After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence and the parties'

arguments, on August 18, 2021, the trial court rendered an oral decision denying

defendant's motion to suppress the handgun. The court determined by "more

than a preponderance of the evidence that [Jean-Simon] observed the gun in the

foyer as he described . . . ," including that the exterior door was open. The court

was "satisfied the gun was observed by the officer in plain view." The court

reasoned the "officer was lawfully where he was permitted to be when he made

A-3453-22 4 [that] observation" of the gun in the "immediate aftermath" of the shootings.

Additionally, the court explained the circumstances surrounding the shootings

required the handgun to be seized "in order to protect the public from any harm

or further harm." Thus, "for either or both of those reasons," the court found the

"officers were justified in ultimately seizing the weapon." Consequently, no

warrant was required for the handgun to be seized. A memorializing order was

entered.

In April 2022, following the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant

pled guilty to an amended count of first-degree aggravated manslaughter,

second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, and first-

degree attempted murder. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, in July 2022,

defendant was sentenced to an aggregate twenty-five-years' incarceration—

twenty-five years for the aggravated manslaughter conviction subject to NERA,

concurrent to a five-year term for the weapons conviction and a concurrent

twenty-year term for the attempted murder conviction. Defendant now

challenges the denial of his motion to suppress.

II.

On appeal, defendant raises two contentions for our consideration. First,

he argues the handgun was unlawfully seized from the foyer because there is no

A-3453-22 5 exception to the warrantless search requirement. He next argues, for the first

time on appeal, the handgun was unlawfully seized from his home based on the

officer's observation made from outside of the apartment building. In that

regard, he articulates his arguments as follows:

THERE WAS NO EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT THAT PERMITTED LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ENTER [DEFENDANT'S] HOME AND SEIZE THE GUN THEY WERE ABLE TO VIEW FROM OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Defendant's contentions are unavailing.

Our scope of review of a decision on a motion to suppress is limited. State

v. Erazo, 254 N.J. 277, 297 (2023). In reviewing a motion to suppress, we must

"uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those

findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v.

Cohen, 254 N.J. 308, 318 (2023) (quoting State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592, 609

(2021)). Accordingly, we "reverse only when the trial court's determination is

'so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and

correction.'" State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014) (quoting State v. Elders,

192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, a trial

court's legal conclusions and "the consequences that flow from established

facts" are reviewed de novo. State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015).

A-3453-22 6 Here, our inquiry focuses on the fact-sensitive issues raised on appeal: (1)

whether the officer was lawfully in the courtyard of the apartment complex when

he observed the handgun on the radiator, and (2) whether the foyer of the

apartment building constitutes defendant's home.

Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions guarantee that

individuals shall be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const.

amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7; see State v. Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 38 (2018).

Generally, a search or seizure without a warrant is "presumptively unreasonable

and therefore invalid . . . [unless] the warrantless search or seizure fell within

one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v.

Nyema, 249 N.J. 509, 527 (2022) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 246) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

"Plain view is one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant

requirement." State v. Johnson, 476 N.J. Super. 1, 20 (App. Div. 2023). Under

the plain-view exception, the officer must be lawfully present in the viewing

area when he or she observes and seizes the evidence, and the incriminating

nature of the evidence to be seized must be immediately apparent to the officer.

State v. Williams, 254 N.J. 8, 45 (2023) (quoting State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77,

101 (2016)).

A-3453-22 7 To satisfy the "immediately apparent" prong, the officer must have

probable cause to associate the item in plain view with criminal activity before

seizing it. State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192, 213 (2002). In establishing probable

cause, the officer need not prove that an officer's suspicion is "correct or more

likely true than false." Id. at 215 (quoting State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 237

(1983)). Rather, "[p]robable cause exists if at the time of the police action there

is 'a "well grounded" suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.'"

State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 211 (2001) (quoting State v. Waltz, 61 N.J. 83,

87, 293 (1972)).

The parties do not dispute that the officers were lawfully present in the

public courtyard of the apartment building in response to a report of criminal

activity—the shooting of two female victims. Rather, defendant argues Jean-

Simon's observation of the handgun in plain view while arresting defendant did

not provide a sufficient basis for the ECPO to enter the building's foyer and seize

the handgun. Defendant's contention misapprehends the plain-view doctrine and

has no support in the record.

Defendant's arrest in the courtyard gave Jean-Simon the lawful

opportunity to make the immediate observation of the handgun on the radiator

in the foyer through the open exterior door. Based on the witness's

A-3453-22 8 identification, Jean-Simon had probable cause to believe defendant was the

shooter and he used that handgun based on its proximity to the courtyard. Thus,

we are convinced the officer's conduct was reasonable and objective and he was

not required to "close his eyes to suspicious evidence in plain view" when it was

immediately apparent that the handgun was evidence related to the shooting.

Johnson, 171 N.J. at 207 (quoting Bruzzese, 94 N.J. at 237). We, therefore,

conclude the search and seizure of the handgun met the plain-view exception to

the warrant requirement.

We next address defendant's argument that the "potentially shared" foyer

is defendant's home and, therefore, is a constitutionally protected area. If it was

defendant's home, defendant argues the State was required to present evidence

that the door to the foyer was "routinely left unlocked" or that the "public

routinely entered the common areas." Defendant's argument lacks merit.

The seizure of the evidence is permitted under the plain-view doctrine

where "the seizure can be made without intruding into any constitutionally

protected area or the intrusion can be made in conformity with the Fourth

Amendment." State v. Pineiro, 369 N.J. Super. 65, 73-74 (App. Div. 2004); see

also Johnson, 171 N.J. at 208. In New Jersey, it is well-established that a

common hallway or area in a multiple-unit apartment building is not within the

A-3453-22 9 zone of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and the parallel provision

of the New Jersey Constitution. Johnson, 171 N.J. at 209. Generally, in "multi-

occupancy premises . . . none of the occupants can have a reasonable expectation

of privacy in areas that are also used by other occupants." State v. Penalber, 386

N.J. Super. 1, 10 (App. Div. 2006) (citations omitted).

Defendant's reliance on State v. Williams, 461 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.

2019) is misplaced. In Williams, we "stress[ed] that our decision [was] limited

to the specific facts of [that] case," given that the living arrangements in a

boarding or rooming house are different from those in an apartment building.

Id. at 15-16.

Defendant's reliance on State v. Mellody, 479 N.J. Super. 90 (App. Div.

2024), to support his argument that "law enforcement unlawfully entered the

foyer to seize the gun" is also misplaced. In Mellody, we held an attached garage

was afforded the same privacy protection as a person's home, or at the least the

home's protected curtilage. Id. at 115-16.

Here, the handgun was seized in a foyer, the common area of the

apartment building, and visible from a "wide open" door. The foyer was an open

space and shared by residents on each side, guests, and delivery persons. It was

more "akin to the common hallway of an apartment building," which belies

A-3453-22 10 defendant's contention that that the foyer constituted part of his home in which

he had a legitimate expectation of privacy. See State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 496,

(1962); see also State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192, 209 (2002) (Johnson I) ("none

of the occupants [of a multi-occupancy premises] can have a reasonable

expectation of privacy in areas that are also used by other occupants."). Given

the totality of the circumstances, we conclude defendant did not have a

reasonable expectation of privacy in the foyer. Therefore, ECPO's entry into the

foyer was permissible, and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to

suppress.

Affirmed.

A-3453-22 11