Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YVONNE WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1974-06-11
Citations: 129 N.J. Super. 84
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YVONNE WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 84–99

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YVONNE WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted April 9, 1974
Decided June 11, 1974.
Before Judges Collester, Lynch and Michels.
Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mr. David A. Faloni, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney for respondent (Mr. Robert A. Rubenfeld, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collester, P. J. A. D.
Defendant was tried to a jury and found guilty on a six-count indictment which charged that on three different days she unlawfully distributed heroin and unlawfully possessed the heroin with intent to distribute it. She was sentenced to six concurrent indeterminate terms with a maximum of ten years at the New Jersey Correctional Institution for Women at Clinton.
On appeal defendant first contends that she should not have been convicted of both the possession of heroin with intent to sell and the sale of the heroin which were part of one criminal transaction. We agree. The State's proofs showed that on each of the three days an undercover narcotics agent went to defendant's apartment and purchased one bag of heroin for $5. There was no evidence that defendant had possession of any heroin other than that which she sold to the agent. Therefore, under the facts of this case possession of the heroin with intent to distribute, while a crime in itself, was also an essential element of the unlawful distribution of which defendant was convicted and must be considered an included offense. She cannot be convicted of both. State v. Wilkinson, 126 N. J. Super. 553 (App. Div. 1973), certif. denied 63 N. J. 562 (1973). But see, State v. Ruiz, 127 N. J. Super. 350 (App. Div. 1974).
Defendant next urges that the offenses of which she was convicted constituted one continuing transaction and therefore she should have been convicted on only one charge. We find no merit to this contention. There was no overall offense here, but three separate offenses on three different dates, and the State could prosecute defendant on each. See State v. Juliano, 52 N. J. 232, 235 (1968) and State v. Brunetti, 114 N. J. Super. 57, 62 (App. Div. 1971).
Lastly, defendant argues that the sentences imposed were excessive. The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in the imposition of a sentence so long as it is within statutory bounds. Before we may interfere there must be a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. State v. Tyson, 43 N. J. 411 (1964), cert. den. 380 U. S. 987, 85 S. Ct. 1359, 14 L. Ed. 2d 279 (1965). In light of the circumstances of defendant's repeated sales of heroin we conclude that the sentences imposed for such, offenses were not manifestly excessive or unduly punitive and there was no abuse of judicial discretion.
The convictions for possession of heroin with intent to distribute it are vacated. The convictions and sentences for unlawful distribution of heroin are affirmed.