SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4377-15T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDDIE J. MARTE, a/k/a MARTE

EDUARDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted May 16, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Sumners.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, 

Indictment No. 14-12-1939.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Jaime B. Herrera, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Bergen County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Catherine A. Foddai, 

Senior Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Eddie J. Marte pled guilty to third-degree 

receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, conditioned on his 

right to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

May 31, 2017
2 A-4377-15T2

indictment. He was sentenced to one year of probation, to be 

served concurrent to a five-year probationary sentence that he was 

serving for a New York robbery conviction. 

Defendant now appeals from his New Jersey conviction, raising 

the following point of argument:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

FAILING TO DISMISS THE NEW JERSEY INDICTMENT 

AFTER MARTE HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED OF A 

THEFT CRIME IN NEW YORK.

Defendant and two co-defendants assaulted a taxicab driver 

in New York, stole the cab, and then drove the vehicle into New 

Jersey. A New Jersey police officer spotted the car driving at a 

dangerously slow speed on the Palisades Interstate Parkway, 

creating a hazard for other motorists. When the officer attempted 

to stop the car, the driver refused to pull over and led the 

officer on a "low speed" chase down the highway, until two other 

officers finally forced the car to stop. In the trial court, as 

on this appeal, defendant argued that because he had already pled 

guilty to robbery in New York, based on the theft of the cab, 

prosecuting him for receiving stolen property in New Jersey would 

violate his rights against double jeopardy and should be barred 

under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(f). 

In a thorough and cogent written opinion, issued with the 

February 22, 2016 order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the 
3 A-4377-15T2

indictment, Presiding Judge Susan J. Steele rejected those 

arguments. Among other things, she concluded that the crimes of 

robbery and receiving stolen property had different elements, and 

New Jersey had an interest in separately prosecuting defendant for

bringing the stolen car into this State. Having reviewed the 

record in light of the applicable legal standards, we find that 

Judge Steele correctly addressed defendant's arguments, and we 

affirm for the reasons stated in her opinion. Defendant's 

appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). 

We note that, after Judge Steele rendered her decision, our 

Supreme Court decided State v. Miles, ___ N.J. ___ (2017). In 

that case, the Court decided to abandon the "same-evidence" test, 

and instead adopt "the Blockburger same-elements test as the sole 

test for determining what constitutes the 'same offense' for 

purpose of double jeopardy." Id. at __ (slip op. at 2) (citing 

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed.

306 (1932)). By its terms, Miles only applies to "offenses committed 

after the issuance of this opinion." Miles, supra, __ N.J. at __ 

(slip op. at 23). However, even if applied here, the opinion would 

make no difference to the outcome of this case.

Affirmed.