Court Opinion

ID: 9909030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 15:06:18.135172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:44.648597
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-3691-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TERRELL JACKSON,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

                   Submitted December 5, 2023 – Decided December 12, 2023

                   Before Judges Haas and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Union County, Indictment No. 21-10-0651.

                   Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Alyssa A. Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public
                   Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Amanda Gerilyn Schwartz, Deputy
                   Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected defendant Terrell

Jackson's motion to suppress evidence found on his person and in a car in which

he was a passenger during the course of a motor vehicle stop. Thereafter,

defendant pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun in

violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to five

years in prison with a forty-two-month period of parole ineligibility.

      On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:

            POINT I

             THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IN THIS CASE
            WERE UNREASONABLE, BECAUSE THEY
            OCCURRED DURING THE [FIFTY]-DAY PERIOD
            AFTER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
            LEGALIZE MARIJUANA HAD GONE INTO
            EFFECT BUT BEFORE [THE CANNABIS
            REGULATORY, ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE,
            AND MARKETPLACE MODERNIZATION ACT
            (CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 TO 56] BECAME
            LAW, WHEN THERE WAS UNDENIABLE
            CONFUSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION
            AS TO WHETHER SIMPLE POSSESSION OF
            MARIJUANA WAS STILL AN OFFENSE.

            POINT II

            BECAUSE THE LAW LEGALIZING MARIJUANA
            DEMANDS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, THE
            DENIAL OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION MUST
            BE REVERSED.

                                                                          A-3691-21
                                       2
       Having considered these arguments in light of the record and the

applicable law, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant

extended discussion in a written opinion.        R. 2:11-3(e)(2).      We affirm

defendant's conviction and sentence and add the following comments.

       The search involved in this case took place on February 3, 2021. Officer

Rodrigo Cervantes was driving his patrol car through a motel parking lot during

a check of the premises. He had his car windows open so he could hear what

was going on outside.

       Cervantes came upon a white Pontiac in front of the lobby entrance, which

blocked him from going to the back parking lot of the motel. As Cervantes

waited behind the Pontiac, the driver and the front seat passenger got out of the

car. "As the[ir] doors opened, [Cervantes] immediately smelled the odor of

marijuana, which [he] knew that the wind was coming from that direction, so

[he] deemed that it was coming from inside the [Pontiac]." When the driver saw

Cervantes, she returned to the car and began to drive to the back of the parking

lot.

       The Pontiac's brake light was not working and Cervantes decided to

conduct a vehicle stop. While he was at the driver's door, Cervantes again

smelled marijuana. Cervantes asked the driver to get out of the car.

                                                                           A-3691-21
                                       3
        Cervantes saw defendant in the back seat of the Pontiac. Defendant was

"pulling his pants up." After backup arrived, Cervantes asked defendant to get

out of the car and told him that "the vehicle smelled like weed." Defendant

admitted "that he had marijuana on him." Cervantes searched defendant and felt

bags of marijuana in his pocket. Cervantes then arrested defendant and placed

him in handcuffs. 1

        During a search incident to the arrest, Cervantes found a loaded handgun

on defendant's inner thigh. Inside the car, Cervantes found empty bags of

marijuana in the "back area" of the Pontiac and a scale in the center console.

Defendant told Cervantes that the marijuana in the car "was his."

        At the time of the February 3, 2021 stop and search, "New Jersey courts

. . . recognized that the smell of marijuana itself constitutes probable cause that

a criminal offense ha[s] been committed and that additional contraband might

be present." State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281, 290 (2013) (alteration in original)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 515-

16 (2003)). Thus, upon detecting the smell of marijuana, police were authorized

"to conduct a warrantless search of the persons in the immediate area from where

1
    Defendant was twenty years old at the time of his arrest.
                                                                             A-3691-21
                                         4
the smell [had] emanated." Nishina, 175 N.J. at 516 (alteration in original)

(quoting State v. Vanderveer, 285 N.J. Super. 475, 481 (App. Div. 1995)).

      On February 22, 2021, however, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory

Enforcement Assistance and Marketplace Modernization Act ("CREAMMA")

became effective. As our Supreme Court recently explained:

            Through CREAMMA, the Legislature fashioned "a new
            approach to our marijuana policies" and "legaliz[ed] a
            new form of marijuana to be referred to as cannabis."
            N.J.S.A. 24-6I-32(a). CREAMMA's amendments to
            N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10 largely decriminalized the
            possession of unregulated marijuana occurring on or
            after its effective date of February 22, 2021. N.J.S.A.
            2C:35-10(a)(4)(b).

            CREAMMA further added a new section to the
            Criminal Code stating that neither "the odor of cannabis
            or burnt cannabis, nor the "possession of marijuana or
            hashish without evidence of quantity in excess of any
            amount that would exceed the amount . . . which may
            be lawfully possessed," "shall, individually or
            collectively, constitute reasonable articulable suspicion
            of a crime" except on school property or at a
            correctional facility. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c.

            [State v. Cohen, 254 N.J. 308, 328 (2023).]

      In his motion to suppress the marijuana and the handgun Cervantes fou nd

on February 3, 2021, defendant argued that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c should be

applied retroactively to him. If that occurred, defendant asserted that Cervantes

would not have had the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime

                                                                           A-3691-21
                                       5
had occurred to justify the automobile stop and the subsequent searches of his

person and the car.

      In a written opinion, the trial court rejected defendant's contention, finding

that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c did not become effective until February 22, 2021 and

could not be applied retroactively to the February 3, 2021 stop and searches

involved in this case.    Therefore, the court upheld the constitutionality of

Cervantes's seizure of the marijuana and the handgun.

      On appeal, defendant again argues that CREAMMA and, more

specifically, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c should be retroactively applied to him. We

disagree.

      Since the time of the trial court's decision, we have squarely held that

CREAMMA's requirement that the "odor of cannabis or burnt cannabis" cannot

constitute "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" must be applied

prospectively. State v. Cambrelen, 473 N.J. Super. 70, 76 n.6 (App. Div. 2022).

Even more importantly, our Supreme Court confirmed earlier this year that

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c "has no bearing" on searches that "predated the passage of

CREAMMA[.]" Cohen, 254 N.J. at 328. Because CREAMMA does not apply

retroactively to the events of February 3, 2021, the trial court properly concluded

                                                                              A-3691-21
                                         6
that Cervantes had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime that justifie d

the motor vehicle stop and his subsequent searches of defendant and the car.

      Defendant raises an additional argument concerning the effect of the

State's adoption of a constitutional amendment, N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 13,

that legalized regulated marijuana (cannabis) for those twenty-one years old or

older. This amendment was adopted by New Jersey voters on November 3,

2020. In pertinent part, the amendment stated:

            The growth, cultivation, processing, manufacturing,
            preparing, packaging, transferring, and retail
            purchasing and consumption of cannabis, or products
            created from or which include cannabis, by persons
            [twenty-one] years of age or older, and not by persons
            under [twenty-one] years of age, shall be lawful and
            subject to regulation by the Cannabis Regulatory
            Commission[.]

                  ....

            "Cannabis" means all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis
            L., whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, and every
            compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
            preparation of the plant or its seeds. "Cannabis" does
            not include: cannabis dispensed and consumed for
            medical purposes pursuant to any law enacted by the
            Legislature; hemp or hemp products subject to
            regulation under the "New Jersey Hemp Farming Act,"
            P.L.2019, c.238 (C.4:28-6 et al.), or any successor
            enactment thereto; or unregulated cannabis, referred to
            as marijuana, and products created from or which
            include marijuana.

                                                                          A-3691-21
                                       7
            [N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 13.]

      As the New Jersey Attorney General explained in a November 4, 2020

statement concerning the enactment, "[t]he [a]mendment, which makes clear

that it does not legalize unregulated marijuana, takes effect on January 1, 2021,

and requires the Legislature to enact a law establishing a regulatory scheme for

legal cannabis." Press Release, Office of the Attorney General, Statement of

Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal on Constitutional Amendment Legalizing

Adult-Use Cannabis, (Nov. 4, 2020).2 The required "regulatory scheme for legal

cannabis" was not in place on February 3, 2021 when the search and seizure in

this case occurred.

      Nevertheless, defendant asserts there was "undeniable confusion" about

whether individuals could possess marijuana at the time of the February 3

search.   Defendant argues that the amendment and the Attorney General's

statement were vague and may have led individuals to believe they could legally

possess marijuana. If that was the case, defendant contends that "suspicion of

marijuana" possession based upon a smell emanating from a vehicle should not

2
      https://www.njoag.gov/statement-of-attorney-general-gurbir-s-grewal-on-
constitutional-amendment-legalizing-adult-use-cannabis/.
                                                                           A-3691-21
                                         8
have been considered "a valid basis for the search of the car or [defendant's]

person."

      This argument fails for a host of reasons. First, defendant was only twenty

years old when he was arrested. The new amendment legalizing the possession

of cannabis only applied to individuals who are twenty-one years old or older.

Thus, N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 13 clearly did not apply to defendant.

      Second, defendant possessed unregulated marijuana. Because there was

no "regulatory scheme for legal cannabis" in place on February 3, 2021, the

amendment could not apply to defendant or anyone else on that date.

      Third, defendant did not testify and he presented no evidence at the

suppression hearing that he was confused in any way about whether he could

legally possess the marijuana Cervantes found on that date. Even if he was, "a

defendant's ignorance of the law making his or her possession of something

illegal is not, in and of itself, a basis to immunize a criminal defendant." State

v. Borjas, 436 N.J. Super. 375, 394 (App. Div. 2014).

      Finally, there is nothing vague about the language used in N.J. Const. art.

IV, § 7, ¶ 13. The amendment plainly states that it applies only to "persons

[twenty-one] years of age or older, and not [to] persons under [twenty-one] years

of age[.]" Ibid. It also makes clear that only regulated cannabis has been

                                                                            A-3691-21
                                        9
legalized, not the type of marijuana defendant possessed on February 3, 2021.

Ibid.

        These points were also made clear in the ballot question and interpretative

materials presented to the public concerning N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 1. See

S.C.R. 183 (2019).3 The ballot question asked:

              Do you approve amending the Constitution to legalize
              a controlled form of marijuana called "cannabis"?

              Only adults at least [twenty-one] years of age could use
              cannabis. The State commission created to oversee the
              State’s medical cannabis program would also oversee
              the new, personal use cannabis market.

              Cannabis products would be subject to the State sales
              tax. If authorized by the Legislature, a municipality
              may pass a local ordinance to charge a local tax on
              cannabis products.

              [Ibid.]

The accompanying Interpretative Statement explained:

              This amendment would legalize a controlled form of
              marijuana called "cannabis." Only persons at least
              [twenty-one] years of age could use cannabis products
              legally.

              The Cannabis Regulatory Commission would oversee
              the new adult cannabis market. This commission was
              created in 2019 to oversee the State’s medical cannabis

3
    https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2018/SCR/183_I1.PDF
                                                                             A-3691-21
                                        10
            program. The scope of the commission’s new authority
            would be detailed in laws enacted by the Legislature.

            All retail sales of cannabis products in the new adult
            cannabis market would be subject to the State’s sales
            tax. If authorized by the Legislature, a municipality
            may pass a local ordinance to charge a local tax on
            cannabis products.

            [Ibid.]

      Contrary to defendant's unsupported assertions, the amendment is not

unconstitutionally vague. It states in easily understandable terms that it only

applies to individuals who are twenty-one years of age or older who possess

regulated cannabis.    It also specifically advised the public that additional

legislation was needed to implement the amendment's terms. Defendant was

only twenty years old on February 3, 2021 and he possessed marijuana rather

than cannabis. Under these circumstances, defendant clearly had fair warning

that his conduct on that date was unlawful. See State v. Badr, 415 N.J. Super.

455, 470-71 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S.

104, 108 (1972) (stating that "[t]he vagueness doctrine is premised on the notion

that the law must 'give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable

opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.'" )).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-3691-21
                                      11