SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 4057
- 14T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.
NICHOLAS M. IVES, a/k/a NAZIR BAY, a/k/a NAZAIR BEY,
Defendant
- Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted February 9, 2017

– Decided Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 13
- 02
- 0154. Josep h E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Laura B. Lasota, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Jennifer Webb

- McRae, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Kim L. Barfield, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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.

June 8, 20172 A - 4057
- 14T3

Defendant Nicholas Ives , also known as Nazir Bey, appeals from an Apr il 10, 2015 judgment of conviction after a jury trial.

We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing . Defendant was a senior corrections officer at Bayside State Prison (Bayside) . In September 2011, Robert Percy , an inmate,
gave a corrections offi cer a bundle of heroin with a note attached , implicating defendant in prison drug transaction s . Thereafter, the New Jersey D epartment of Corrections Special Investigations Division began investigating defendant . Percy told investigators defendant provide d him with heroin, which Percy paid for by arranging for his wife , A.P., 1 to send money to N.P., the wife of fellow inmate Vincent Heredia. Defendant and Heredia were childhood friends and it was alleged defendant picked up payments
from N.P . 's home.

De f endant was indicted for second

- degree official misconduct, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:30
- 2 ( a ) , and third

- degree conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), contrary to
N.J.S.A. 2C:5
- 2 and 2C:39
- 5 (a) (1). Percy testified at trial, telling the jury he was an addict currently serving a thirty

three
- year prison term. He recounted it was easy to obtain heroin in the various correctional facilities where he had been assigned.

1 We use initials to protect the identity of non - party witness es .3 A - 4057
- 14T3

While at Bayside, Heredia introduc ed Percy to defendant to obtain heroin. Percy received the heroin from defendant in the kitchen
where defendant was stationed . According to Percy, defendant set up a system to tape the drugs under a food cart where Percy would retrieve them. Defendant a lerted Percy to the presence of drugs under the cart by ripping the edge of the food order sheet on top
of the cart. Percy testified he lied to A.P. , telling her he needed money for legal fees and asking her to write three checks for $1500 each
and to send them to N.P . The checks were made payable to N.P. and
defendant's mother . A.P. also testified. She told the jury she wrote the checks
to N.P. and defendant's mother after Percy told her both worked for lawyers who he hired. N.P. testified Heredia called her and told her to expect a "lawyer" to come to her house to turn over
money for his appeal. She was reluctant to do so, but later agreed
after s he spoke twice over the phone to an inmate N.P. identified as "Pop - pop , " who told her something was " coming her way " and gav e her messages for the "lawyer." N.P. identified defendant as the "lawyer" who came to her house , and identified her signature a s well as defendant's signature on the back of canceled checks. N.P. iden tified a check made out to her for $1500 from A.P. and testified the check was the mai l she discussed with "Pop

- pop."4 A - 4057
- 14T3

Defendant came to the house to pick up that check and endorsed the check to him self so he could cash it. According to N.P., defendant

ca me to her house several more times but only to pick up unopened envelopes sent to her house under the care of a different name. A Wells Fargo bank employee provided testimony for the jury tracing

N.P. 's three checks to deposits into defendant's bank accou nt. Defendant testified and acknowledged he and Heredia had grown up together but no longer socialized as adults. When Heredia was incarcerated in Bayside, Heredia worked in the kitchen where defendant was assigned. Defendant testified Heredia wanted a n ew life and asked defendant to help him get a lawyer for his appeal. Defendant testified he declined to help because of his position as a corrections officer but later agreed to ask his mother, who Heredia knew, if she would help him contact a lawyer. De fendant told Heredia his mother would assist him , and Heredia gave defendant the names of two lawyers , which defendant passed on to his mother. Heredia told defendant he would send the money for the lawyers to defendant's mother through a family member . D efendant testified that, due to N.P. 's reluctance to assist in getting money for the lawyers , he agreed to pick up money from

N.P . He acknowledged receiving the three checks, one of which was endorsed to him and two others payable to his mother, which he deposited in his Wells Fargo account. He testified he later gave5 A - 4057
- 14T3

cash to his mother. He testified Heredia's attorney wanted $1 0,000 for the appeal ; however, when Heredia was transferred to another prison , defendant's mother returned the money to defendant , and
he subsequently returned it to N.P . Defendant also ackn owledged guards and inmates at B ayside called him "the lawyer ." He denied engaging in drug transactions and denied having contact with Percy. Defendant's mother also testified. S he corroborated defendant's account of trying to assist Heredia to hire a lawyer , claiming she r eceived the cash from defendant and kept it in a
safe at her house , but later returned it to defendant who return ed it to N .P . N.P. testified s he never received money back from
defendant. The jury found defendant guilty of both charges on October 8, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the trial judge denied defendant's motion for a n ew trial, and after merging count two, conspiracy , in to count one, official misconduct, sentenced defendant to a

seven - year prison term with a five

- year period of parole ineligibility. This appeal followed. On appeal defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I . THE CONVICTIONS WERE CLEARLY AGAINST TH E WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, NECESSITATING REVERSAL. U.S. CONST. AMEND XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. 1, PAR. 10.6 A - 4057
- 14T3 POINT II . THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.
I. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to R ule 3:20
- 1. Specifically, he contend s the convictions were against the weight of the evidence because Percy's testimony was not credible. A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless, when balanced against the jury's opportunity to assess a witness's credibility, there has been a clear and convincing manifest denial of justice. State v. Saunders , 302 N.J. Super. 509, 524 (App. Div.), certif. denied , 151 N.J. 470 (1997). "On a motion for a new trial, the objective is not to second

- guess the jury but to correct the injustice that would result from an obvious jury error." Ibid . "Unless no reasonable jury could have reached such a verdict, a reviewing court must respect a jury's determination." State v. Afanador , 134 N.J. 162, 178 (1993). When considering a motion to set aside the verdict, the court must rev iew the evidence to determine " whether any trier of fact could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the essential elem ents of the crime were present. " Ibid. (quoting State v. Carter , 91 N.J. 86, 96 (1982)). When a jury reaches its verdict based on its assessment7 A - 4057
- 14T3

of the witnesses' credibility, the verdict cannot be set aside unless there is clear evidence of "a mistake, partiality, passion or prejudice." State v. Haines , 20 N.J. 438, 447 (1956) . We are satisfied that there is no such evidence in the record. The jury was in the best position to determine the credibility of Percy's testimony. The jury heard the testimony about Percy's drug use in prison and his manipulation of others to secure drugs in prison , including lying to his wife. Moreover, the lies P ercy told his wife are not inconsistent with the plan set in motion to secure heroin in prison by paying defendant. A fter considering all of the evidence presented at trial, we are satisfied that a jury could reasonably find defendant guilty of both charg es . Therefore, defendant's convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial under Rule 3:20
- 1.

II. Finally, defendant argues his sentence was excessive. We are constrained to vacate defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing , as the judge's findings on the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors conflict and not supported by
the record. As long as the sentence is based on competent credible evidence and fits within the st atutory framework, t rial judges8 A - 4057
- 14T3

have broad sentencing discretion . State v. Dalziel , 182 N.J. 494, 500 (2005). Judges must identify and consider "any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors" that " are cal led to the court's attention" and " explain how they arrived at a particular sentence."
State v. Case , 220 N.J. 49, 64
- 65 (2014) (quoting State v. Blackmon , 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010) ; State v. Fuentes , 217 N.J. 57, 72, 74 (2014) ). "Appellate review of sentencing is deferential," and we therefore avoid substituting our judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Id. at 65; see State v. O'Donnell , 117 N.J. 210, 215
- 16 (1989); State v. Roth , 95 N.J. 334, 364
- 65 (1984). The sentenci ng judge found aggravating factors three (the risk of re

- offense), six (the extent of defendant's prior criminal record), and nine (the need for deterrence). The judge also found mitigating factor seven, no prior history of delinquency or criminal activit y. In finding aggravating factor three the judge stated, He is . . . 39 years of age. There is no

juvenile record. The adult record consists of prior arrests, which resulted in the present indictable conviction. There is some risk that he's going to commit another offense. I will give that moderate weight. The judge found mitigating factor seven, defendant has no real prior history of criminal activity.9 A - 4057
- 14T3

The judge's finding of aggravating factor three and mitigating factor seven are in c onflict and are not supported by competent , credible evidence in the record. While it is true a finding of aggravating factor three can coexist with a finding of mitigating factor seven, that finding must be "grounded in competent, credible evidence in th e record." Case , supra , 220
N.J. at 67. The judge did not provide a reasoned explanation as to how he found defendant presented a risk to commit another offense when this was defendant's first indictable conviction. As such, we are constrained to vacate defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing. In remanding for resentencing, we do not express an opinion on whether the court should again find aggravating factor three and mitigating factor seven. Additionally, we do not express an opinion on the length of the sentence imposed. On remand, we require only that the court reconsider its determination as to aggravating factor three and mitigating factor seven, make appropriate findings supporting its determination, and resentence defendant based on it s weighing of the aggravating and mitigating
factors. Defendant's conviction is affirmed and his sentence is
vacated . We remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.