NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3928-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KASIB DECKER, a/k/a KARON REED,
Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________
Submitted September 22, 2020 – Decided September 29, 2020
Before Judges Haas and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 16-06-0837.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Rochelle Watson, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Ednin D. Martinez, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM After the trial court denied defendant's pre-trial motions covering a
number of different issues, he pled guilty to two counts of second-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon by a certain person not to possess weapons,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea, the
court sentenced defendant to two concurrent ten-year terms, with an aggregate
five-year period of parole ineligibility. As part of the plea, the court dismissed
the remaining twenty-one counts of the indictment that pertained to defendant,
including a count charging him with being the leader of a firearms trafficking
network, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-16, which defendant had unsuccessfully moved to
dismiss prior to entering his guilty plea. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:
POINT I
BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PUT FORTH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT [DEFENDANT] HELD A HIGH-LEVEL POSITION IN THE CONSPIRACY THAT INVOLVED TWO OR MORE PERSONS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT.
POINT II
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND FOR RESENTENCING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT THAT HER CONTINUED REPRESENTATION WAS ILL-ADVISED WHERE
A-3928-17T1 2 HE HAD ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND BECAUSE DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH SENTENCING.
Having reviewed these contentions in light of the record and the
applicable law, we affirm.
I.
In Point I, defendant argues that the trial judge erred by denying his
motion to dismiss count one of the indictment, which charged him with being
the leader of a firearms trafficking network involving himself and two of his co -
defendants, Jason Siek and Daquan Smith. In response, the State asserts that
defendant's challenge to count one is moot because this charge was dismissed at
the time of sentencing. We agree with the State for the reasons expressed in
State v. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. 577, 585 (App. Div. 2016) (holding that "if a
pre-trial motion only affects a dismissed count, an appeal of that pre-trial motion
presents a moot, non-justiciable question").
Rule 3:9-3(f) sets forth the requirements for entering a conditional guilty
plea reserving the right to appeal an adverse determination "of any specified
pretrial motion." The Rule requires both "the approval of the court" and "the
consent of the prosecuting attorney." R. 3:9-3(f). However, even if Rule 3:9-
3(f) is satisfied, the appeal must relate to a count to which the defendant pled
A-3928-17T1 3 guilty in order to remain viable. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. at 587 ("Even if the
record had been sufficient to preserve [the] defendant's right to appeal the pre -
trial motion relating only to a dismissed count of the indictment, we hold that
the issue is moot.").
Here, defendant pled guilty to two counts of the indictment charging him
with certain persons weapons offenses. In return for his guilty plea, all of the
remaining charges against him, including count one, were dismissed. Because
defendant has already received all the relief he is seeking on this part of his
appeal, that is, the dismissal of count one of the indictment, his challenge to the
trial judge's denial of his earlier motion to dismiss that charge is obviously moot.
Ibid. Therefore, we reject defendant's contention on this point.
However, even if we consider defendant's argument, we are satisfied that
it is without merit. In examining the power of grand juries, our Supreme Court
"has recognized the grand jury's independence and has expressed a reluctance to
intervene in the indictment process." State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228 (1996).
Consequently, a trial court should disturb an indictment only "'on the clearest
and plainest ground' . . . and only when the indictment is manifestly deficient or
palpably defective." Id. at 228-29 (quoting State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128 (1991)).
A-3928-17T1 4 A trial judge's decision denying a defendant's motion to dismiss an
indictment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39,
55 (2015) (citing Hogan, 144 N.J. at 229). Accordingly, the trial judge's
"exercise of discretionary authority ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal
unless it has been clearly abused." Hogan, 144 N.J. at 229.
Defendant argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to
support count one, which charged him with being the leader of a firearms
trafficking network. We disagree.
Unlike a formal trial, where the State's burden is to prove a defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must only present the grand jury with
"some evidence" as to each element of its prima facie case. State v. Morrison,
188 N.J. 2, 10 (2006). Indictments returned by a grand jury are presumed valid.
State v. Francis, 191 N.J. 571, 587 (2007). Accordingly, in determining whether
the evidence proffered in support of an indictment is sufficient, "the facts u pon
which the indictment is based must be viewed indulgently in favor of the
State[,]" State v. Fleischman, 383 N.J. Super. 396, 398 (App. Div. 2006), aff'd,
189 N.J. 539 (2007), and "every reasonable inference is to be given to the State."
State v. N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8, 27 (1984). The defendant challenging
A-3928-17T1 5 an indictment bears the burden of showing that the evidentiary support for the
charge is "clearly lacking." State v. McCrary, 97 N.J. 132, 142 (1984).
In his written decision denying defendant's motion to dismiss count one
of the indictment, the trial judge correctly concluded that defendant failed to
meet this burden. In order to support count one charging defendant with
violating N.J.S.A. 2C:39-16, the State had to present "some evidence"
establishing:
(1) That defendant conspired with two or more persons.
(2) That the conspiracy included a scheme . . . to unlawfully . . . transport, ship, sell or dispose[] of any firearm.
(3) That defendant was an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager in such a conspiracy.
(4) That defendant occupied a high level position of superior authority or control over other persons in the scheme or organization and exercised that authority or control over others involved in the scheme or organization.[]
(5) That defendant engaged in the conspiracy for profit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-3928-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KASIB DECKER, a/k/a KARON REED,
Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________
Submitted September 22, 2020 – Decided September 29, 2020
Before Judges Haas and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 16-06-0837.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Rochelle Watson, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Ednin D. Martinez, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM After the trial court denied defendant's pre-trial motions covering a
number of different issues, he pled guilty to two counts of second-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon by a certain person not to possess weapons,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea, the
court sentenced defendant to two concurrent ten-year terms, with an aggregate
five-year period of parole ineligibility. As part of the plea, the court dismissed
the remaining twenty-one counts of the indictment that pertained to defendant,
including a count charging him with being the leader of a firearms trafficking
network, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-16, which defendant had unsuccessfully moved to
dismiss prior to entering his guilty plea. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:
POINT I
BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PUT FORTH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT [DEFENDANT] HELD A HIGH-LEVEL POSITION IN THE CONSPIRACY THAT INVOLVED TWO OR MORE PERSONS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT.
POINT II
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A REMAND FOR RESENTENCING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT THAT HER CONTINUED REPRESENTATION WAS ILL-ADVISED WHERE
A-3928-17T1 2 HE HAD ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND BECAUSE DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH SENTENCING.
Having reviewed these contentions in light of the record and the
applicable law, we affirm.
I.
In Point I, defendant argues that the trial judge erred by denying his
motion to dismiss count one of the indictment, which charged him with being
the leader of a firearms trafficking network involving himself and two of his co -
defendants, Jason Siek and Daquan Smith. In response, the State asserts that
defendant's challenge to count one is moot because this charge was dismissed at
the time of sentencing. We agree with the State for the reasons expressed in
State v. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. 577, 585 (App. Div. 2016) (holding that "if a
pre-trial motion only affects a dismissed count, an appeal of that pre-trial motion
presents a moot, non-justiciable question").
Rule 3:9-3(f) sets forth the requirements for entering a conditional guilty
plea reserving the right to appeal an adverse determination "of any specified
pretrial motion." The Rule requires both "the approval of the court" and "the
consent of the prosecuting attorney." R. 3:9-3(f). However, even if Rule 3:9-
3(f) is satisfied, the appeal must relate to a count to which the defendant pled
A-3928-17T1 3 guilty in order to remain viable. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. at 587 ("Even if the
record had been sufficient to preserve [the] defendant's right to appeal the pre -
trial motion relating only to a dismissed count of the indictment, we hold that
the issue is moot.").
Here, defendant pled guilty to two counts of the indictment charging him
with certain persons weapons offenses. In return for his guilty plea, all of the
remaining charges against him, including count one, were dismissed. Because
defendant has already received all the relief he is seeking on this part of his
appeal, that is, the dismissal of count one of the indictment, his challenge to the
trial judge's denial of his earlier motion to dismiss that charge is obviously moot.
Ibid. Therefore, we reject defendant's contention on this point.
However, even if we consider defendant's argument, we are satisfied that
it is without merit. In examining the power of grand juries, our Supreme Court
"has recognized the grand jury's independence and has expressed a reluctance to
intervene in the indictment process." State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228 (1996).
Consequently, a trial court should disturb an indictment only "'on the clearest
and plainest ground' . . . and only when the indictment is manifestly deficient or
palpably defective." Id. at 228-29 (quoting State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128 (1991)).
A-3928-17T1 4 A trial judge's decision denying a defendant's motion to dismiss an
indictment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39,
55 (2015) (citing Hogan, 144 N.J. at 229). Accordingly, the trial judge's
"exercise of discretionary authority ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal
unless it has been clearly abused." Hogan, 144 N.J. at 229.
Defendant argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to
support count one, which charged him with being the leader of a firearms
trafficking network. We disagree.
Unlike a formal trial, where the State's burden is to prove a defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must only present the grand jury with
"some evidence" as to each element of its prima facie case. State v. Morrison,
188 N.J. 2, 10 (2006). Indictments returned by a grand jury are presumed valid.
State v. Francis, 191 N.J. 571, 587 (2007). Accordingly, in determining whether
the evidence proffered in support of an indictment is sufficient, "the facts u pon
which the indictment is based must be viewed indulgently in favor of the
State[,]" State v. Fleischman, 383 N.J. Super. 396, 398 (App. Div. 2006), aff'd,
189 N.J. 539 (2007), and "every reasonable inference is to be given to the State."
State v. N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8, 27 (1984). The defendant challenging
A-3928-17T1 5 an indictment bears the burden of showing that the evidentiary support for the
charge is "clearly lacking." State v. McCrary, 97 N.J. 132, 142 (1984).
In his written decision denying defendant's motion to dismiss count one
of the indictment, the trial judge correctly concluded that defendant failed to
meet this burden. In order to support count one charging defendant with
violating N.J.S.A. 2C:39-16, the State had to present "some evidence"
establishing:
(1) That defendant conspired with two or more persons.
(2) That the conspiracy included a scheme . . . to unlawfully . . . transport, ship, sell or dispose[] of any firearm.
(3) That defendant was an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager in such a conspiracy.
(4) That defendant occupied a high level position of superior authority or control over other persons in the scheme or organization and exercised that authority or control over others involved in the scheme or organization.[]
(5) That defendant engaged in the conspiracy for profit.
[Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Leader of Firearms Trafficking Network (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-16)" (approved Dec. 8, 1997) (footnote omitted).]
A-3928-17T1 6 Here, the judge found that the State presented sufficient evidence to the
grand jury demonstrating that defendant "organized multiple sales of firearms"
and was responsible for obtaining the firearms that he and Siek would sell to
other individuals. In furtherance of this conspiracy, defendant reached out to
Smith, his contact in North Carolina, to obtain an AR-15 that he and Siek
planned to resell. In response to defendant's request, Smith delivered the
weapon to New Jersey and was apprehended at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
As the judge found after reviewing the transcript of the grand jury proceedings,
without the firearms defendant procured, "there would be no organization."
Because the State presented ample evidence to support count one of the
indictment, the judge properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss this charge.
II.
In Point II, defendant asserts that his attorney provided him with
ineffective assistance at the time of sentencing. Defendant argues that shortly
before his sentencing hearing, he sent a letter to the trial judge complaining
about his attorney. 1 On the day of sentencing, the judge gave the letter to the
attorney, who questioned whether she could continue to represent defendant in
1 Defendant did not include a copy of this correspondence in his appellate appendix. A-3928-17T1 7 light of his claim that she was ineffectively representing him. However,
defendant never asked for a different attorney and did not request an
adjournment. Under these circumstances, the judge advised the attorney that
she should continue to represent defendant.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant bears the
burden of satisfying the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984), which requires a showing that trial counsel's performance was
deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, the result would have been
different. Our Supreme Court has expressed a preference for resolving
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, like those presented by defendant in
this case, on collateral review. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 459-60 (1992).
Thus, "[c]ontentions of ineffective assistance of counsel are more effectively
addressed through petitions for post-conviction relief, at which point an
appropriate record may be developed." State v. Rambo, 401 N.J. Super. 506,
525 (App. Div. 2008) (citing Preciose, 129 N.J. at 460).
Because defendant's claims concerning his attorney's performance before
and during the sentencing proceeding rest upon evidence outside the record, they
are not ripe for direct review. Therefore, defendant's claim of ineffective
A-3928-17T1 8 assistance of counsel must abide the result of a properly filed petition for post-
conviction of relief.
Affirmed.
A-3928-17T1 9