Preview:

a4193-06.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); second-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, with intent to
distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2); third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine, with intent
to distribute within one thousand feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; and hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3(b). At sentencing, the trial court merged the possession conviction and the school zone conviction into the
conviction for possession with intent to distribute and sentenced defendant to six years in prison, with a three-year
period of parole ineligibility. The trial court also sentenced defendant to a concurrent three-year term of
incarceration for hindering. Fines and penalties were also assessed. Defendant has appealed her convictions and
sentence. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm. ">
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4193-06T44193-06T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RAMONA ACEVEDO, a/k/a
RAMONA ACEBEDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted October 28, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Wefing and LeWinn.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Union County,
Indictment No. 04-07-0877.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (William Welaj, Designated Counsel,
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4193-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:42:09 PM]




a4193-06.opn.html
of counsel and on the brief).
Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Sara B. Liebman,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Tried to a jury, defendant was found guilty of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, cocaine,
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. (NOT RAISED BELOW)
POINT III: THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.
During the course of defendant's brief trial, the State presented Detective Martin Lynch of the Union County
Prosecutor's Office as an expert witness. Based upon his experience and training, Detective Lynch was qualified as
an expert witness in the identification, packaging, use, sale and distribution of narcotics. He was then presented
with a hypothetical question which incorporated testimony that had been presented to the jury and asked whether,
in his opinion, the narcotics had been possessed with the intent to distribute. He said they had been. This,
defendant argues, represented an improper intrusion upon the function of the jury.
Defendant's argument, however, is premised upon dissenting opinions of Justice Albin in State v. Summers, 176 N.J.
306 (2003), and State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (2006). We, however, are bound by the majority opinions in those
matters, as well as State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1989).
Defendant's second point, with respect to the period of parole ineligibility, is moot, defendant having served that
entire period. Her contention that her sentence is manifestly excessive lacks merit. Her sentence was at the low end
of the sentencing range for a second-degree offense.
Defendant's convictions and sentence are affirmed.
0x01 graphic
Contreras's appeal of his conviction was submitted to the court together with Acevedo's appeal. In a separate
opinion filed on this date, we affirm his conviction.
(continued)
(continued)
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4193-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:42:09 PM]




a4193-06.opn.html
4
A-4193-06T4
January 2, 2009
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4193-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:42:09 PM]

Download a4193-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law