[brief] If the evidence was not admitted in error, some years ago into the murder [...] is accused of, [...] would have continued with his jury selection and trial (Da 2, box 3, lines 25).  What [...] did not get was the benefit of being offered a fair trial, and [...] did get a bargain deal as the State wises to suggest.  So, to be forced to plead guilty to crimes [...] is innocent of, and would have rather went to trial on, that is no bargain.  (Da 81, 3-18).  [...] asserts if the evidence that was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure was not, in error, admitted into [...]' murder trial, defendant [...] would have went to trial on all case matters against him.  There are multiple issues within the other cases the state was more than willing to dismiss.  Those cases were dismissed because the state had no evidence that established or supported [...]' guilt of any of the crimes charged, because the elements of the crime do not support the crimes charged.  The trial court judge [...] may have claimed that [...] would "get a fair trial" (Da 3, box 4, lines 1-2).  But no fair was would have taken place with the admission of the illegally obtained evidence that took away [...] right to be offered a fair trial.  It took the New Jersey Supreme court to suppress and correct the lower court's error.  For multiple reasons the state would not be prejudiced.  [...] also will not have to plead to 30/30 or plead to anything.  It still is the defendant's decision and opportunity to make that choice, and that choice and opportunity is what the State is trying to take away from Jamar [...], that the law states [...] has a right to (emphasis added).  The state is trying to deny [...] and all other future defendants their legal right to choose to withdraw their plea.  This is a direct attack on a defendant's right to challenge a lower court's decision, it is an also attack on defendant’s challenging alleged evidence against him/her, and the evidence legal admission into a defendants trial etc.  For the appellate court not to allow [...] to withdraw his guilty plea he is entitled to be afforded the opportunity to do would be to say a defendant has no definite right to appeal, even especially after prevailing on appeal, as in this above case.  That comes from a court rule of 3:9_3 (f).  This would open a battle in every county in New Jersey and 3rd circuit states, once the state can challenge a Supreme Court decision, and a defendant ability to prevail on appeal who wants to withdraw his plea.  What's next?  It will destroy the laws in place, protections for defendants like Jamar [...] and process of the appeal courts that defendants should never feel unsafe from challenging an unjust lower court's ruling, and/or erroneous decision, or the denial to be protected by the law.  Supreme Court Rule. 3:9-3(f) is the law.  Therefore, Jamar [...] respectfully and urgently request the Appellate court to uphold the law the Supreme court has set and established under court R. 3:9-3 (f).  [...] plea was a global plea, it was conditional, and [...] asserts he wants to withdraw his plea and prepare for trial as he stands in his innocence.  [...] kindly request the appellate courts vacate his conviction, vacate [...] sentence, and remand back to the trial courts.  Sincerely, Jamar [...]