SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0350-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ENZO R. PENA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted June 6, 2017 – Decided June 27, 2017

Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment 

No. 13-04-1041.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Al Glimis, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, and Cody T. Mason, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the

briefs).

Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (John C. Tassini, 

Assistant Prosecutor, and Samuel Marzarella, 

Chief Appellate Attorney, on the brief).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-0350-15T1

PER CURIAM

Defendant Enzo R. Pena pled guilty to first-degree leading a 

narcotics network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3, second-degree possession of 

a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and five 

counts of second-degree employing a juvenile to distribute drugs, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty 

years in prison, ten years to be served without parole. He appeals 

from the conviction, limited to the denial of his suppression 

motion.

Defendant's counseled brief presents the following point of 

argument:

THE COURT'S ORDER DENYING SUPPRESSION OF 

EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH 

AMENDMENT AND THE NEW JERSEY STATE 

CONSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED.

Defendant also filed a pro se supplemental brief which does 

not present any points of argument, but which also contends that 

the suppression motion should have been granted.1

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable 

standards, we find that defendant's counseled and pro se appellate 

arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

 

1 To the extent that defendant's pro se brief implies that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address 

the issue. Any such claims may be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 460 (1992); 

State v. Sparano, 249 N.J. Super. 411, 419 (App. Div. 1991). 
3 A-0350-15T1

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm for the reasons 

stated by Judge Rochelle Gizinski in her thorough oral opinion 

placed on the record on May 9, 2014. We add these brief comments. 

The affidavit supporting the warrant application was based 

on detailed information, including: citizen complaints about 

defendant's drug selling activities; two controlled buys carried 

out by a confidential informant; and recent reports from two 

individuals who sought police protection because defendant had 

threatened to kill them during a disagreement over drug sales. 

Those individuals described to the police defendant's drug dealing 

activities in detail. One of the individuals, a juvenile, also 

showed the police a text message, sent from defendant's known cell 

phone number, threatening to torture and kill the juvenile and his 

family. We agree with Judge Gizinski that, based on the totality 

of the circumstances, there was probable cause to issue a warrant 

authorizing the police to install a Global Positioning Satellite 

(GPS) tracking device on defendant's car. See State v. Keyes, 184 

N.J. 541, 556-57 (2005). 

Affirmed.