SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0727-17T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARLOS A. ESCOBAR, a/k/a

CARLOS ALBEIRO ESCOBAR 

SANABRIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted February 4, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 16-02-0148.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Fredric M. Knapp, Morris County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Paula C. Jordao, Assistant Prosecutor, 

on the briefs).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 11, 2019
2

A-0727-17T3

PER CURIAM

This is a direct appeal pursuant to Rule 3:5-7 of a trial court's denial of a 

suppression motion following the entry of a guilty plea. We affirm.

Appellant Carlos A. Escobar was one of numerous individuals identified 

as suspects during an investigation into the drug distribution network of a man 

named J.S.

1

 Narcotics investigators gathered evidence by court-approved 

wiretaps and through the use of an undercover investigator. The undercover 

investigator made numerous purchases of cocaine from J.S. The investigation 

revealed that J.S. and other individuals, including Escobar, were involved in the 

narcotics distribution activities. 

The wiretaps intercepted numerous drug-related conversations between 

Escobar and J.S., in which Escobar placed orders for cocaine. Surveillance also 

revealed several meetings between Escobar and J.S. Also, the intercepted 

wiretap conversations included certain "code words," which the undercover 

officer himself used successfully in making the purchases from J.S.

The police applied for a search warrant to search an apartment where 

Escobar was believed to reside with his girlfriend. 

 

1 We use initials for J.S. in light of the possible continued confidentiality of 

materials in the Confidential Appendix. 
3

A-0727-17T3

Judge Stuart Minkowitz granted the search warrant. The police executed 

the warrant at the premises. They found no cocaine but found four pounds of 

marijuana in a suitcase, and $1,850 in cash. Escobar was arrested outside of the 

residence, and a search of his person turned up another $1,080 in cash. 

The State charged Escobar in a six-count indictment with five narcoticsrelated offenses, including second-degree conspiracy to possess cocaine with 

intent to distribute it, and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child.

Escobar moved to suppress the fruits of the search. His motion was denied 

by Judge Stephen J. Taylor in a comprehensive written decision issued on May 

8, 2017. Judge Taylor concluded that the search warrant affidavit satisfied the 

elements of probable cause. He found that the State had made enough of a 

showing to discern probable cause to believe that Escobar had been involved in 

drug activity and there was reason to believe those drugs would be found at his 

usual place of residence. 

After the suppression motion was denied, Escobar's trial counsel 

negotiated a plea agreement with the State, in which Escobar pled guilty to thirddegree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-

5(a)(1), -5(b)(11). The State applied for and was granted its request for the 
4

A-0727-17T3

imposition of an extended-term sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), in light of 

Escobar's prior criminal record. 

The court imposed a five-year prison sentence with a three-year parole 

disqualifier. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. Escobar 

than moved for admission to the Drug Court program, which was denied.2 

On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments in his brief:

THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE 

WARRANT MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE 

THE WARRANT APPLICATION LACKED THE 

REQUISITE SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 

U.S. CONST., AMENDS. IV, IX; N.J. CONST. (1947), 

ART. 1, PAR. 7 

A. The Warrant Application Failed To Allege Facts 

Sufficient To Support the Crimes Alleged.

B. The Warrant Application Failed to Demonstrate 

Probable Cause That the Defendant Was Engaged in 

Criminal Activity.

In addition, defendant makes the following arguments in a supplemental 

pro se brief:

POINT I

TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO 

SUPPRESS THE SEARCH WARRANT THAT 

FAILED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE 

 

2 The Drug Court denial is not an issue raised on appeal.
5

A-0727-17T3

THAT DRUGS WOULD BE FOUND THERE OR 

THAT APPELLANT LIVED THEREIN.

POINT II

TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ENTERTAIN THE

APPELLANT'S MITIGATING FACTORS AND/OR 

APPLY THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCING 

PURSUANT TO SAID MITIGATING FACTORS 

WHICH PREJUDICED THE APPELLATE AND 

CONSTITUTED AN EXCESSIVE HARDSHIP 

SENTENCE APPELLANTS SENTENCE MUST BE 

REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

Having duly considered these arguments, we affirm the suppression ruling 

substantially based on the well-reasoned analysis of Judge Taylor in his lengthy 

written opinion. The record demonstrates that the State's warrant application 

was based on adequate facts indicating Escobar's involvement in criminal 

activity. Defendant failed to surmount his "burden of proof to establish a lack 

of probable cause 'or that the search was otherwise unreasonable.'" State v. 

Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 427 (2017). The supporting affidavit indicated more than 

a single agreement to buy or sell drugs and instead supported a drug conspiracy 

utilizing code words. As such, the warrant application did not violate the 

"simple agreement" tenets of State v. Roldan, 314 N.J. Super. 173, 182 (App. 

Div. 1998).
6

A-0727-17T3

We also reject Escobar's pro se argument contesting his sentence. The 

record adequately supported the finding of aggravating factor three (the risk of 

re-offense), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), as well as two other aggravating factors. 

Given Escobar's multiple prior offenses, including two drug offenses, the 

sentence imposed consistent with his plea agreement does not shock the judicial 

conscience. State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 607-08 (2010).

All other arguments, to the extent we have not already addressed them, 

lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.