SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2871-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL D. GIBSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted September 27, 2018 – Decided July 16, 2019

Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 15-11-2211.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (John W. Douard, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief 

Appellate Attorney, of counsel; John C. Tassini, 

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-2871-16T3

Following a jury trial, defendant Michael D. Gibson was found guilty of 

first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and fourth-degree possession of an 

imitation firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(e). The court sentenced defendant to an 

eleven-year term of imprisonment on the robbery charge, subject to the eightyfive percent period of parole ineligibility mandated by the No Early Release Act, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and to a concurrent one-year term of imprisonment for 

possession of an imitation firearm.

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for our 

consideration:

POINT I: THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO 

CHARGE BOTH SECOND-DEGREE ATTEMPTED 

ROBBERY AND ATTEMPTED THEFT AS LESSERINCLUDED OFFENSES OF FIRST-DEGREE 

ROBBERY, WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT 

SUPPORTED BOTH LESSER-INCLUDED CHARGES. 

A. There Was Ample Evidence In The Record That 

Mr. Gibson Did Not Knowingly Or Purposely 

Threaten The Bank Tellers With Immediate Bodily 

Injuries, Requiring A Lesser-Included Charge Of 

Attempted Robbery.

B. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Charge 

Attempted Theft As A Lesser-Included Charge Of 

Robbery.

POINT II: THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON ARMED 

ROBBERY WAS CONFUSING, INCOMPLETE, AND 

INCORRECT; MOREOVER, THE CORRECTED 
3

A-2871-16T3

RECHARGE FAILED TO RESOLVE THE CONFUSION, 

THEREBY DENYING MR. GIBSON HIS 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A 

FAIR TRIAL.

POINT III: DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE WAS

MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

Having reviewed defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable 

legal principles, we affirm.

I

The salient evidence adduced at trial was as follows. On October 6, 2015, 

L.A.1 was working at a TD Bank in Brick. At approximately 5:10 p.m., L.A. 

locked a set of doors that provided access to the interior of the bank from an 

adjoining vestibule, where the bank's ATM2 was located. The outer doors to the 

vestibule, which provided access to the exterior of the bank, were left unlocked 

so customers could use the ATM at any time.

As she returned to her desk, L.A. looked out of the window and saw a tall, 

thin, young man, later identified as defendant, run into the vestibule "very 

quickly and very irately." His face and hands were covered, and he had a black 

 

1

 We refer to this victim by her initials to protect her privacy.

2

 ATM stands for automated teller machine.
4

A-2871-16T3

gun in his hand. L.A. yelled to a teller, who was unlocking another set of doors 

to let a customer out of the bank, to lock the door right away.

Defendant commenced pulling on the locked inner doors that separated 

the vestibule from the interior of the bank, causing them to "rattle." L.A. 

testified defendant was also "showing me the gun, like he was trying to, I guess 

trying to make me open the doors. And he banged on the doors with the gun. . 

. . [F]irst he pointed it, then he held it back, and then he banged on the door with 

it." Fearful the doors might shatter or defendant would shoot through them, L.A. 

and the teller ran to and ducked behind the teller line. After a "little while," 

L.A. stood up and defendant was gone.

Jason Archiello, the customer the teller had let out of the other door, 

testified that when he exited the bank, he observed defendant run towards the 

bank carrying a gun. Defendant's face was covered by the hood of his sweatshirt. 

Achiello saw defendant inside of the vestibule knocking on the glass, and called 

a detective of the Brick Township Police Department to report he believed the 

bank was being robbed.

The police were dispatched and successfully apprehended defendant 

shortly thereafter. Defendant provided a video recorded statement to the police 

later that day, which was played during the trial. In the recording, defendant 
5

A-2871-16T3

stated that on October 6, 2015, he had been evicted and he and his family needed 

money. He and his cousin were driving past the bank when defendant told his 

cousin to stop the car; defendant's intention was "to get money from the bank." 

Defendant got out of the car, approached the bank's entrance from the side of 

the building, and tightened the drawstrings of his hoodie so that his face was 

covered.

While holding a BB gun, defendant entered the outside doors to the ATM 

vestibule and attempted to open the inside doors to the bank lobby, but he 

discovered they were locked. Therefore, defendant left, claiming he did not 

"take the initiative to even try to force myself in." Defendant asserted that if the 

inside doors had been unlocked, he did not think he "would have went through 

with it."

Before he left, defendant saw a teller running in the bank, and he guessed 

he had scared her because she saw him holding the gun. He stated he also left 

the bank because he knew he had "scare[d] the tellers and everything." 

Defendant returned to his cousin's car and they drove off. He and his cousin 

were subsequently stopped by the police and ultimately placed into custody that 

same day.
6

A-2871-16T3

II

As stated, on appeal defendant claims the trial court erred because it: (1) 

failed to charge the jury on both attempted robbery and attempted theft as lesserincluded offenses of robbery; (2) provided a "confusing" and "incomplete"

charge on armed robbery, prejudicing defendant's right to a fair trial; and (3) 

imposed a manifestly excessive sentence on the charge for robbery.

We first address defendant's contention the trial court erred because it 

failed to charge the jury on attempted robbery and attempted theft as lesserincluded offenses of robbery.

N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a) provides that:

A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of 

committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of 

immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime 

of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in 

the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an 

attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the 

attempt or commission.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a).]
7

A-2871-16T3

Robbery, therefore, consists of the following elements:

(1) theft or attempted theft; (2) intimidating or 

assaultive conduct consisting of (a) inflicting bodily 

injury upon another or (b) threatening another with or 

purposely putting him in fear of immediate bodily 

injury or (c) committing or threatening immediately to 

commit any crime of the first or second degree [or (d) 

using force upon another person]; (3) the intimidating 

or assaultive conduct must have occurred during the 

theft or attempted theft or in immediate flight after the 

theft or attempted theft, and (4) defendant must have 

acted purposely. Theft is defined, generally, as the 

unlawful taking or exercise of unlawful control over 

property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof 

. . . . N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. Attempted theft is defined by 

combining the foregoing definition of theft with 

N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a). It is an abortive effort to perpetrate 

a theft.

[State v. Farrad, 164 N.J. 247, 257 (2000) (alteration in 

original) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Carlos, 

187 N.J. Super. 406, 412 (App. Div. 1982)).]

Robbery is elevated to a crime of the first-degree "if in the course of 

committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or 

attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens 

the immediate use of a deadly weapon." N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(b).

The fact a defendant does not succeed in stealing property from another is 

not dispositive, because "a defendant can be convicted of robbery, even if the 

theft is unsuccessful, if he or she (1) purposely takes a substantial step (2) to 
8

A-2871-16T3

exercise unlawful control over the property of another (3) while threatening 

another with, or purposely placing another in fear of, immediate bodily injury." 

Farrad, 164 N.J. at 258. The "'substantial step' requirement in the 'attempt' 

statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(3), is satisfied if a defendant acts in a way that is 

'strongly corroborative of the firmness of his purpose' to carry out the crime." 

Ibid. (quoting State v. Fornino, 223 N.J. Super. 531, 538 (App. Div. 1988)).

Here, neither the State nor defendant requested that the court instruct the 

jury on either lesser-included offense. However, even if there is no request by 

a party to charge the jury on a lesser-included offense, a trial court has an 

independent, non-delegable duty to instruct a jury on such a charge "when the 

facts adduced at trial clearly indicate that a jury could convict on the lesser while 

acquitting on the greater offense." State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)

(emphasis added).

Here, the greater offense is robbery, and the lesser-included offenses 

defendant claims should have been charged to the jury are attempted robbery 

and attempted theft. Therefore, in order for the trial court to have charged the 

jury with these lesser-included offenses, the facts adduced at trial had to have 

clearly indicated that a jury could have convicted defendant of these lesserincluded offenses while acquitting him of robbery.
9

A-2871-16T3

We first examine whether under this standard the trial court should have 

instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted robbery. A

person can be found guilty of attempted robbery if he attempts to threaten

another person with or purposely puts that individual in fear of immediate bodily 

injury. Farrad, 164 N.J. at 259-60. A person commits attempted robbery if he 

takes a substantial step toward threatening another person or putting that 

individual in fear of immediate bodily injury. Id. at 260.

Here, the facts adduced at trial did not clearly indicate that a jury could 

have convicted defendant of attempted robbery while acquitting him of robbery. 

As even his own statement to the police reveals, defendant did more than just 

attempt to threaten another person with or purposely put such person in fear of 

immediate bodily injury. Through his conduct, defendant in fact threatened 

those inside of the bank with or put them in fear of immediate bodily injury. 

According to defendant, when he arrived at and entered the bank, he intended to 

rob the bank because he needed money. In furtherance of such plan, he entered 

the vestibule of the bank with his face covered and a gun clearly in hand.

Although he was thwarted from getting into the bank because the inner 

doors were locked and he did not take further action to get inside of the bank, 

the mere act of entering the vestibule of a bank where he was visible to the staff 
10 A-2871-16T3

inside, with a firearm plainly in hand and his face obviously obscured to conceal 

his identity, was sufficiently intimidating conduct to put those in the bank in 

fear of immediate bodily injury. Even defendant acknowledged he had scared 

the tellers. The undisputed evidence was defendant went beyond merely 

attempting to put those in the bank in fear of immediate bodily injury – he in 

fact engaged in conduct that did so. Thus, the facts adduced at trial did not 

clearly indicate that a jury could have convicted defendant of attempted robbery 

while acquitting him of robbery.

In Farrad, the police observed defendant looking inside of a fast-food 

restaurant. Id. at 252. The restaurant was located in a community that had 

recently experienced robberies of fast-food establishments. Ibid. The defendant 

entered the restaurant and approached the counter. Ibid. When the defendant 

placed his hand into his right coat pocket, the officers apprehended him and 

found a loaded gun. Ibid. The Court held these facts could support a conviction 

for attempted robbery. Id. at 260. Here, the facts are markedly different from 

those in Farrad. There is uncontroverted evidence defendant engaged in conduct 

that put others in fear of immediate bodily injury – he did more than merely 

attempt to do so.
11 A-2871-16T3

There also was no basis for the trial court to charge the jury on attempted 

theft. The evidence adduced at trial did not clearly indicate that a jury could 

have convicted defendant on the lesser included offense of attempted theft while 

acquitting on the greater offense of robbery. As previously stated, that a 

defendant does not complete an act of theft does not preclude a conviction for 

robbery. A defendant can be convicted of robbery, even if his attempts to 

commit a theft were foiled, as long as he purposely takes a substantial step to 

exercise unlawful control over the property of another while threatening another 

with or purposely placing the victim in fear of immediate bodily injury. See id.

at 258. 

Here, the evidence reveals defendant planned to rob the bank. He did not 

complete such plan, but not before engaging in conduct to put bank employees 

in fear of immediate bodily injury in furtherance of his scheme to steal money 

from the bank. Evidence of his conduct before he entered and while at the bank 

was strongly corroborative of the firmness of his purpose to carry out the crime. 

Defendant took a "substantial step" toward committing a theft, and his attempt 

at theft in fact fulfilled an element of the offense of robbery.

Thus, the trial court did not err when it failed to instruct on the lesserincluded charge of theft. The evidence adduced at trial did not clearly indicate 
12 A-2871-16T3

a jury would acquit on the greater offense, specifically, robbery. Jenkins, 178 

N.J. at 361. In sum, we discern no basis for error because the court did not 

charge the jury with attempted robbery or attempted theft.

Defendant next contends the jury charge was so confusing and incomplete 

that he was denied his right to a fair trial. The basis for defendant's argument is 

that the court used the term attempted robbery instead of attempted theft in four 

instances while reading the charge to the jury.

After the court finished charging the jury, both counsel brought the error 

to the court's attention. The court then advised the jury of and corrected its error. 

We view the charge as a whole to be adequate, see State v. Randolph, 228 N.J. 

566, 592 (2017), and conclude defendant's arguments are without sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Finally, defendant contends his sentence was excessive. Specifically, he 

argues that he should have been sentenced on the robbery charge to a ten-year 

term instead of to an eleven-year term of imprisonment. In our view, the 

sentence, which was at the lower end of the range for first-degree crimes, was 

not manifestly excessive or unduly punitive and does not shock our judicial 

conscience. See State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010) (citing State v. Roth, 

95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)).
13 A-2871-16T3

Affirmed.