Court Opinion

ID: 9963002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:07:03.912217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:45.110549
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3359-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DELSHON J. TAYLOR JR.,
a/k/a TAYLOR DELSHON,
and DJ,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Argued January 24, 2024 - Decided April 24, 2024

                   Before Judges Currier, Susswein and Vanek.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 18-07-0257.

                   Scott Michael Welfel, Assistant Deputy Public
                   Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E.
                   Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Scott Michael
                   Welfel, of counsel and on the briefs).

                   Matthew Morgan Bingham, Assistant Prosecutor,
                   argued the cause for respondent (Kristin J. Telsey,
                   Salem County Prosecutor, attorney; David M.
             Galemba, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
             brief).

PER CURIAM

       After we granted the State leave to appeal the trial court's order

suppressing evidence because it was recovered following an illegal stop, we

remanded for the court to apply the factors cited in State v. Williams (Williams

I), 192 N.J. 1, 15 (2007). State v. Taylor, No. A-3303-18 (App. Div. Aug. 28,

2019) (slip op. at 9-10). On remand, the court considered the Williams I factors

and denied defendant's suppression motion.       Defendant appeals from the

suppression order and the court's order upholding the prosecutor's denial of a

waiver of the mandatory minimum Graves Act 1 sentence. We affirm.

                                       I.

       On November 15, 2017, Penns Grove police officer Travis Paul was on

patrol driving through an apartment complex when he heard "shots fired." He

"immediately called it out on the radio." Paul headed to the area of South Broad

Street and "alerted other officers to canvas the area." When Paul heard another

patrolman on the radio advising he was talking to two individuals on Smith

Street, Paul drove there. However, as he was talking to those individuals, Paul

1
    N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c).
                                                                          A-3359-21
                                       2
heard dispatch report that a 9-1-1 caller had described shots fired in the area of

South Broad Street. Paul then heard Sergeant Carmen Hernandez on the radio

stating she was talking to three individuals on South Broad Street.          Paul

immediately drove to that location. He testified approximately five minutes had

passed from the time he heard shots fired.

      Hernandez was also on patrol that night and heard Paul make the "shots

fired" call over the radio. She testified the call "simply stated that shots were

fired near South Broad Street." Hernandez explained that Penns Grove is .91

square miles and South Broad Street "runs directly through the entire town, . . .

from pretty much one end to the other."

      Hernandez traveled down South Broad Street and saw three males walking

on the sidewalk. She said two of them were "standing . . . near the sidewalk

. . . close to the area [to which the officers were] called." Then a third male

walked up to the group and a car pulled up.             Hernandez stated the three

individuals "were the only people in the area." Since it was "near the site" the

police were called to, Hernandez turned around, parked her marked SUV, and

approached the men. She testified it was "less than" a minute, "maybe seconds,"

from the time the call initially came over the radio.

                                                                            A-3359-21
                                        3
      As Hernandez approached the men, one of the males walked to the driver's

side of the car and "tr[ied] to . . . walk" away. Because she was "unsure what

was . . . happening," Hernandez called for backup. As she did so, Hernandez

observed the car and the men start to move away. She then told the men she was

detaining them because of the report of fired shots. Hernandez instructed a

sheriff's officer and a Carney's Point sergeant who had arrived at the scene to

stop the vehicle that had begun to drive away because she "was unsure what had

taken place." Carney's Point patrolman Timothy Haslett stayed with Hernandez.

      Hernandez patted down one of the individuals—Zaire Robinson. She

stated she detained him because the officers

            weren't sure whether . . . [the three men] were involved
            in the . . . shots fired incident at the time, and he kept
            trying to walk away, and also the fact that he was the
            one that was . . . near the vehicle. [Robinson] kept
            reaching [into the driver's side of the car].

Hernandez was not sure whether Robinson had obtained something from the

vehicle, and she wanted to ensure the individuals were not carrying weapons.

      Haslett knew one of the individuals, Corey Mills, Jr., from "previous

dealings with him," and approached him. Haslett told Mills he was going to pat

him down, and Mills said he did not "know th[e] guy next to [him], he just

walked up on [Mills] and [his] friend." Mills was referring to defendant. Haslett

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                        4
told Mills he was going to pat him down for weapons, asked if he had anything

on him Haslett "should be concerned with." Mills said no.

      Hernandez and Paul stated, "the only reason" they patted the individuals

down was because Hernandez was "investigating [the] shots fired call."

      Paul testified that when he approached defendant, "[defendant] was

walking away from [the] officers" and was "pac[ing] back and forth," which

made Paul "nervous after hearing shots fired." According to Paul, defendant

stated he wanted to go home, he did not do anything, and he did not have

anything on him, which "alerted [Paul] as an officer," and he began to worry

about his safety. When Paul reiterated he was going to pat defendant down for

the officers' safety, defendant "took off running." Both Paul and Haslett ran

after him.

      Paul stated that during the chase, "it seemed as if [defendant] reached for

his waistband and pulled out a handgun and threw it on the [pavement] and he

continued to run." Paul looked at the dropped item as he ran by it and screamed

out "gun, gun, gun." He was ultimately able to apprehend defendant.

      Both Haslett and Hernandez confirmed that defendant took off running.

Hernandez stated she heard Paul say, "don't run." Haslett told defendant to stop

running, but he did not, and Haslett saw defendant "reach in to either a sweatshirt

                                                                             A-3359-21
                                        5
pocket or somewhere in the front of his person." Haslett fell and saw defendant

throw a black handgun to the curb.           After the gun was retrieved, police

discovered it was loaded with hollow point bullets.

                                       II.

      Defendant was charged in an indictment with: second-degree unlawful

possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) (count one); second-degree

possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1); fourth-

degree obstructing the administration of law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a); fourth-degree

tampering with physical evidence, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1); and fourth-degree

possession of prohibited devices (hollow point bullets), N.J.S.A. 2C:39 -3(f)(1).

                                       A.

      Defendant moved to suppress the handgun, and the court held a hearing in

October 2018. In addition to the officers' testimony, the court also watched the

footage from the officers' body-worn cameras.

      On November 2, 2018, the court denied defendant's motion to suppress in

an oral and written decision. The court found the three officers were credible

and their testimony was consistent with the body-worn camera footage. The

court found that initially Hernandez intended to conduct a field inquiry, but it

quickly turned into an investigative detention when she told the men they had to

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                       6
remain at the scene while she waited for backup. The court stated that "[a]n

investigative detention is justified only if the evidence, when interpreted in an

objectively and reasonable manner, shows that the encounter was preceded by

activity that would lead a reasonable police officer to have an articulable

suspicion that criminal activity had occurred or would shortly occur."

        After considering the facts, the court concluded "that the State has

demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a reasonable

and articulable suspicion that one or more of the men had engaged in, or been

part of, the shots fired incident and thus an investigative detention was

warranted."    The court further found "that the officers had an objectively

reasonable belief that one or more of [the three] men may have been armed."

Therefore, the police were permitted to seize the gun after defendant threw it

away.    The court added that regardless of the legality of the investigative

detention, "a person must . . . submit to a stop by police . . . because the

resistance and fleeing puts officers and the public at risk." Because defendant

discarded the weapon while obstructing the administration of law, the weapon

was properly seized. The court denied the suppression motion.

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                       7
                                        B.

       Defendant moved for reconsideration, contending the court "erred in

finding a reasonable suspicion for the investigative detention and Terry [2] frisk

that followed." Defendant asserted a "defendant's actions after an investigative

detention has occurred cannot be used post hoc to find reasonable suspicion that

the stop was, in fact, lawful."

       The court granted the motion for reconsideration in an oral decision on

February 8, 2019, memorialized in a February 11, 2019 order and February 21,

2019 written memorandum. In granting reconsideration and the suppression

motion, the court reiterated its finding that Hernandez conducted an

investigative detention and the three men, including defendant, would not feel

they were able to leave the scene. Differing from its initial decision, the court

found Hernandez

              did not articulate a reasonable and particularized
              suspicion that these men had just engaged in conduct
              connected to the shots fired call. They simply happened
              to be in the area she was patrolling after hearing the
              call.   [Hernandez] identified nothing about their
              conduct nor demeanor that justified an investigative
              detention.

2
    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24-27 (1968).
                                                                            A-3359-21
                                        8
                                         III.

       We granted the State leave to appeal and remanded for "the motion judge

to apply the three factors cited in Williams [I] to the facts of this case." Taylor,

slip op. at 9 (italicization omitted).

       On remand, the court heard counsel's arguments on October 10, 2019, and

issued an oral decision denying defendant's suppression motion.3 The court

again found that "the investigatory stop was unlawful because there was no

reasonable and particularized suspicion . . . about why these three individuals

were suspected to have been involved in the shots that were fired."

       However, the court noted the issue was "whether there was attenuation

between the unlawful stop and the recovery of the . . . handgun."             After

reviewing the facts in light of the Williams I factors, the court found defendant's

flight from the scene was an attenuating circumstance. Therefore, even though

it was an illegal investigative detention, defendant's subsequent flight and

discarding of the handgun were sufficient actions to purge any taint from the

illegal stop. The court denied defendant's motion to suppress.

3
    The decision was memorialized in an order the same day.
                                                                              A-3359-21
                                          9
                                       IV.

      During the course of the proceedings, defendant requested a waiver of the

mandatory minimum sentence required under the Graves Act. The State denied

the request in a February 12, 2020 letter. Although the State acknowledged

defendant did not have any adult criminal convictions, it also noted defendant

was noncompliant with the officers' instructions and he fled from the scene,

resulting in a foot pursuit. During the pursuit, one of the officers fell, injuring

his leg. Under the circumstances presented, the State found a Graves Act waiver

was unwarranted.

      On April 26, 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to count one. The State

dismissed the remaining charges and recommended a sentence of five years '

incarceration with three years and six months of parole ineligibility.         The

sentence was to run concurrently with another charge to which defendant later

pleaded guilty.

      During the July 16, 2021 sentencing hearing, the judge analyzed the

aggravating and mitigating factors and concluded they were "in equipoise." The

judge questioned the propriety of the recommended sentence, querying whether

a five-year sentence with one year of parole ineligibility was more appropriate

                                                                             A-3359-21
                                       10
given the lack of any prior criminal history. The hearing was adjourned for a

week.

        Thereafter, defendant moved "to override the State's [February 12, 2020]

refusal of a Graves Act waiver." The court permitted the parties to brief the

issue and asked the State to distinguish defendant's case from other matters in

which the State granted a Graves Act waiver.

        Following the sentencing hearing in June 2022, the court issued an oral

decision. The court began by analyzing the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court gave "moderate weight" to aggravating factor three, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-

1(a)(3), "[t]he risk that the defendant will commit another offense," and found

aggravating factor nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9), "[t]he need for deterring the

defendant and others from violating the law," applied. The court gave "moderate

weight" to mitigating factor two, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(2), "[t]he defendant did

not contemplate that the defendant’s conduct would cause or threaten serious

harm"; "slight weight" to mitigating factor seven, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(7), "[t]he

defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a

law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the

present offense"; "moderate weight" to mitigating factor eight, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-

1(b)(8), "[t]he defendant’s conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                       11
recur"; "slight weight" to mitigating factor nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(9), "[t]he

character and attitude of the defendant indicate that the defendant is unlikely to

commit another offense"; "slight weight" to factor ten, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(10),

"[t]he defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary

treatment"; and "moderate weight" to mitigating factor fourteen, N.J.S.A.

2C:44-1(b)(14), "[t]he defendant was under 26 years of age at the time of the

commission of the offense."       Thus, the mitigating factors outweighed the

aggravating factors.

      The court then addressed the Graves Act waiver motion under a "patent

and gross abuse of discretion" standard, which "requires the [c]ourt to view the

[p]rosecutor's decision through the filter of the highly deferential standard of

review," citing State v. Rodriguez, 466 N.J. Super. 71, 105 (App. Div. 2021).

Guided by Rodriguez, the court noted that "a patent and gross abuse of discretion

is not automatically established by finding one or two cases where similarly

situated defendants were granted a waiver."          The judge stated that her

"conscience t[old] [her] that a [five-year sentence with three-and-a-half years of

parole ineligibility] [wa]s the wrong sentence for this defendant. However, [a

judge's] consci[ence] is not what our [j]udicial [s]ystem is based upon. It's based

upon an application of the law as it is written." The judge recognized that if she

                                                                             A-3359-21
                                       12
imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment with one year of parole

ineligibility, "[she] would be substituting [her] judgment for that of the

[p]rosecutor's [o]ffice." The court concluded the State's determination to not

grant the Graves waiver was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion. The

court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to five years

imprisonment with three-and-a-half years of parole ineligibility.

                                       V.

      On appeal, defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:

            POINT I
            BECAUSE THE POLICE LACKED REASONABLE
            SUSPICION TO STOP AND FRISK DEFENDANT
            AND DEFENDANT'S FLIGHT DID NOT PURGE
            THE TAINT OF THE UNLAWFUL POLICE
            CONDUCT, THE MOTION COURT SHOULD HAVE
            GRANTED    DEFENDANT'S    MOTION   TO
            SUPPRESS.

            A. The Motion Court Correctly Found That Hernandez
            Lacked Reasonable Suspicion For The Stop.

            B. Defendant's Flight Did Not Purge The Taint Of The
            Unlawful Police Conduct.

            POINT II
            BECAUSE THE PRESIDING JUDGE APPLIED THE
            WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW TO THE
            PROSECUTOR'S REFUSAL TO APPROVE A
            GRAVES WAIVER AND THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
            EVIDENCE TO MEET THE APPROPRIATE ABUSE
            OF DISCRETION STANDARD, THIS COURT

                                                                          A-3359-21
                                      13
             SHOULD VACATE THE SENTENCE AND
             REMAND    FOR   RECONSIDERATION    OF
             DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO OVERRIDE THE
             PROSECUTOR’S GRAVES WAIVER DENIAL.

             A. The Presiding Judge Erroneously Evaluated The
             Prosecutor's Refusal To Consent To A Graves Waiver
             Under The "Patent And Gross Abuse Of Discretion"
             Standard But Should Have Applied The Ordinary
             "Abuse Of Discretion" Standard.

             B. The State's Refusal To Approve A Graves Waiver
             Was Arbitrary And Capricious Because Its Initial
             Rejection Letter Failed To Follow The Directive, It
             Relied On The Inappropriate Factor Of Defendant's
             Arrests That Did Not Result In Conviction, And It Had
             Granted Waivers To Defendants In Worse Cases.

                                   A.

      We begin with defendant's contentions regarding the denial of his

suppression motion.        As stated in our decision following the interlocutory

appeal,   "[w]e   presume[d]      the   investigatory   stop   in   this   case     was

unconstitutional." Taylor, slip op. at 7. We remanded for the trial court "to

apply the three factors cited in Williams [I] to the facts of this case." Id. at 9

(italicization omitted).

      On remand, the court again found the investigatory stop was unlawful as

the officer lacked reasonable and particularized suspicion to detain defendant

and the other individuals. However, after analyzing the Williams I factors, the

                                                                                  A-3359-21
                                         14
court found defendant's flight from the scene was an intervening circumstance

that attenuated the unlawful stop from the seizure of the handgun.

      Our review of a decision on a motion to suppress is limited. State v.

Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592, 609 (2021). "'Generally, on appellate review, a trial

court's factual findings in support of granting or denying a motion to suppress

must be upheld when "those findings are supported by sufficient credible

evidence in the record."'" State v. A.M., 237 N.J. 384, 395 (2019) (quoting State

v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017)). We defer to these factual findings because

of the trial court's "opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the

'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." State v. Elders, 192

N.J. 224, 244 (2007) (quoting State. v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). "We

ordinarily will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are 'so

clearly mistaken "that the interests of justice demand intervention and

correction."'" State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384, 398 (2022) (quoting State v.

Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014)). Our review of legal conclusions drawn from

those facts is de novo. State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469, 493 (2022).

      "Under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, 'searches and seizures

conducted without warrants issued upon probable cause are presumptively

                                                                            A-3359-21
                                       15
unreasonable and therefore invalid.'"        Goldsmith, 251 N.J. at 398 (quoting

Elders, 192 N.J. at 246). Therefore, the State must prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that the warrantless search or seizure falls within one of the "'"well-

delineated exceptions"' to the warrant requirement." State v. Shaw, 213 N.J.

398, 409 (2012) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004), overruled

in part by State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012)).

      A Terry stop is one exception to the warrant requirement as it "involves a

relatively brief detention by police during which a person's movement is

restricted." Goldsmith, 251 N.J. at 399. Such an investigatory stop may be

made without a warrant "'if it is based on "specific and articulable facts which,

taken together with rational inferences from those facts," give rise to a

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Rodriguez,

172 N.J. 117, 126 (2002)). An officer may frisk or pat down an individual for

weapons if the officer has reason to believe the individual is armed and

dangerous. State v. Legette, 227 N.J. 460, 472-73 (2017).

      In our prior decision we accepted the court's conclusion that this was an

unlawful Terry stop. The officer and the 9-1-1 caller merely heard and reported

shots being fired somewhere nearby. There was no description or identification

of the person who fired the shots, or a precise location. Hernandez had no

                                                                              A-3359-21
                                        16
reasonable or particularized suspicion to suspect defendant was involved in the

shots fired incident. Merely being in the area is not sufficient grounds for an

investigatory detention. See Goldsmith, 251 N.J. at 403 n.6.

      However, in Williams I, the Court considered similar circumstances to

those present here and held that even if officers conduct an unconstitutional

Terry stop, if a suspect "[o]bstruct[s] the police," it "constitute[s] a break in the

chain from the investigatory stop." 192 N.J. at 10. In Williams I, one of the

officers approached the defendant and requested that he place his hands on his

head so they could pat him down for safety purposes. Id. at 5. The defendant

then pushed the officer and began to flee. Ibid. When the officers caught up to

the defendant, and apprehended him, they discovered a handgun in his

waistband. Ibid.

      The Court stated that "[t]he taint from [an] initial stop [i]s significantly

attenuated by [a] defendant's criminal flight." Id. at 10. Therefore, physical

evidence seized after the flight was not subject to suppression under the

exclusionary rule. Id. at 10-11. The Court explained that because the chain of

causation in such circumstances has been broken, the exclusionary rule does not

apply. Ibid.

                                                                               A-3359-21
                                        17
      In Williams I, the Court termed the constitutionality of the initial

investigative stop as "doubtful." Id. at 10. However, when the defendant

disregarded the officer's instructions and began to flee, the Court found the

officers had probable cause to believe he violated the obstruction statute. Id. at

13. In addition, the Court stated the officers "were acting in good faith and

under color of their authority" because they responded reasonably to the radio

dispatch in a high-crime area. Ibid. However, if the officers "'without any basis

arbitrarily detaine[ed] a person on the street,'" that "would have taken th[e] case

outside the purview of the obstruction statute." Ibid. (first alteration in original)

(quoting State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440, 461 n.8 (2006)).

      The Court has previously held that evidence will not be suppressed "when

the connection between the unconstitutional police action and the evidence

becomes '"so attenuated as to dissipate the taint"' from" an unlawful

investigatory stop. State v. Badessa, 185 N.J. 303, 311 (2005) (quoting Murray

v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536-37 (1988)).

      The Williams I Court considered three factors to determine whether seized

evidence has been "sufficiently attenuated from the taint of a constitutional

violation": "(1) the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and the

challenged evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the

                                                                               A-3359-21
                                        18
flagrancy and purpose of the police misconduct." 192 N.J. at 15 (quoting State

v. Johnson, 118 N.J. 639, 653 (1990)).

      The first factor, "temporal proximity[,] 'is the least determinative' factor."

Id. at 15-16 (quoting State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 622-23 (1990)). "'The

second factor, intervening events, "can be the most important factor in

determining whether [evidence] is tainted."'" Id. at 16 (alteration in original)

(quoting Johnson, 118 N.J. at 656). Lastly, the third factor "is 'particularly'

relevant." Worlock, 117 N.J. at 624.

      The Williams I Court concluded the "[d]efendant's resistance to the pat

down and flight from the police . . . was an intervening act—the crime of

obstruction—that completely purged the taint from the unconstitutional

investigatory stop." 192 N.J. at 18.

      On remand here, the trial court analyzed the Williams I factors as directed.

In addressing the first factor, the court found the time between the stop and the

seizure of the gun was very close. Therefore, this factor weighed in favor of

defendant. As to the second factor, the court concluded defendant's disregard

of the officer's instruction and fleeing the scene was an intervening circumstance

and weighed in favor of the State.       Lastly, the court found there was no

misconduct displayed by Hernandez in detaining defendant.

                                                                              A-3359-21
                                       19
      Weighing the three factors, the judge found the facts were "remarkably

similar to the circumstances in Williams [I] where the fleeing was found to be

an attenuating circumstance." Therefore, the court denied defendant's motion to

suppress.

      Defendant asserts the trial erred in its analysis, specifically its finding that

there was an intervening circumstance that attenuated the illegal stop from the

seizure of the handgun. We disagree.

      Defendant suddenly ran from police, causing two of them to pursue him

on foot. One of the officers fell during the chase, injuring his leg. While

running, defendant threw a loaded handgun to the ground. Running with a

loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber and then throwing it away were all acts

that "posed a risk of physical injury to police officers and . . . members of the

public." State v. Williams, 410 N.J. Super. 549, 563 (App. Div. 2009). We are

satisfied defendant's intervening criminal acts broke the chain of causation

between the unlawful stop and the seizure of evidence. The flight and attendant

actions were sufficiently attenuated from the stop to dissipate the taint of the

unconstitutional action.

      As to the third factor, the same judge conducted the suppression hearing,

ruled on the motions, and handled the remand. On each occasion, the judge

                                                                               A-3359-21
                                        20
found no evidence that any of the officers involved in these events acted with

flagrant misconduct. The court described the testifying officers as credible, and

their body-worn camera footage corroborated their versions of the events. We

see no grounds upon which to disturb the court's finding on factor three. See

Williams I, 192 N.J. at 16 ("[E]ven though the officers may have acted

mistakenly, they did so in good faith.").

      On remand, the trial court concluded the Williams I factors weighed in

favor of suppressing the handgun. For the reasons stated, we affirm the order

denying defendant's suppression motion.

                                       B.

      We turn to defendant's contention that the court applied the wrong legal

standard in reviewing the denial of a Graves Act waiver. Defendant asserts the

decision should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion, not for a "patent and

gross abuse of discretion."

      "The [Graves] Act makes the use or possession of a firearm during the

commission, attempted commission, or flight from the commission of certain

designated offenses a sentencing factor that triggers the imposition of a

mandatory term of imprisonment." State v. Benjamin, 228 N.J. 358, 367 (2017)

(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 516, 529 (2005)).

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                       21
The purpose of the Graves Act is "to deter individuals from committing firearm-

related crimes by calling for a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for

those convicted of Graves Act offenses." Id. at 368 (citing State v. Des Marets,

92 N.J. 62, 71 (1983)).

      However, the Graves Act includes "a limited exception that allows certain

first-time offenders to receive a reduced penalty if the imposition of a mandatory

term would not serve the interests of justice." Ibid. This exception states:

            On a motion by the prosecutor made to the assignment
            judge that the imposition of a mandatory minimum term
            of imprisonment under (a) subsection c. of N.J.S.[A.
            ]2C:43-6 for a defendant who has not previously been
            convicted of an offense under that subsection, or (b)
            subsection e. of N.J.S.[A. ]2C:39-10 for a defendant
            who has not previously been convicted of an offense
            under chapter 39 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes,
            does not serve the interests of justice, the assignment
            judge shall place the defendant on probation pursuant
            to paragraph (2) of subsection b. of N.J.S.[A. ]2C:43-2
            or reduce to one year the mandatory minimum term of
            imprisonment during which the defendant will be
            ineligible for parole. The sentencing court may also
            refer a case of a defendant who has not previously been
            convicted of an offense under that subsection to the
            assignment judge, with the approval of the prosecutor,
            if the sentencing court believes that the interests of
            justice would not be served by the imposition of a
            mandatory minimum term.

            [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2.]

                                                                            A-3359-21
                                       22
      "In 2008, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive 'to ensure

statewide uniformity in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in implementing'

the Graves Act." Benjamin, 228 N.J. at 369 (quoting Attorney General Directive

to Ensure Uniform Enforcement of the "Graves Act" § 6(a), at 10 (rev. Nov.

2008) [hereinafter Directive]. The Directive "provides clear parameters for

prosecutors contemplating a waiver," and while occasionally "prosecutors in

different counties may reach different Graves Act waiver conclusions, [the

courts] have recognized that some disparity in sentencing is inevitable." Id. at

372 (first citing Directive, § 6, at 10-15; and then citing State v. Brimage, 153

N.J. 1, 22 (1998)). "[T]he Directive requires prosecutors to 'document in the

case file [their] analysis of all the relevant aggravating and mitigating

circumstances.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Directive, § 6(d), at 13).

      "[B]ecause the State is obligated to provide the case-specific files

containing its statement of reasons to the assignment judge to consider in

assessing the prosecutor's conduct," the assignment judge is permitted to

"maintain[] those files and rely[] on them in evaluating 'the prosecutor's . . .

decision[].'" State v. Andrews, 464 N.J. Super. 111, 123 (App. Div. 2020)

(quoting Benjamin, 228 N.J. at 373). "[T]he comparative analysis the trial court

conduct[s]—examining past cases where the prosecutor had granted Graves Act

                                                                             A-3359-21
                                       23
waivers—is a legitimate component of the robust judicial review needed to

ensure that a prosecutor's rejection of a Graves Act waiver" is not

unconstitutionally arbitrary. Rodriguez, 466 N.J. Super. at 92. An assignment

judge may delegate their authority to the Criminal Part presiding judge. See

State v. Nance, 228 N.J. 378, 392 (2017); see also R. 1:33-6(a)).

      Defendant's charge of unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit,

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), subjected him to a mandatory minimum sentence of "one-

half of the sentence imposed by the court or [forty-two] months, whichever is

greater." N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). After defendant moved to "override" the State's

decision, the State submitted a brief analyzing the aggravating and mitigating

factors. In addition, during the sentencing hearing, the State discussed more

than a dozen cases in which it had sought a Graves Act waiver, and distinguished

defendant's circumstances from those matters.

      After reviewing the State's decision for patent and gross abuse of

discretion, the trial court denied defendant's application to override the denial

of a Graves Act waiver. We see no error.

      The precedential case law establishes patent and gross abuse discretion as

the appropriate standard.     See Benjamin, 228 N.J. at 364 (permitting a

"defendant[] to appeal the denial of a waiver to the assignment judge upon a

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                      24
showing of patent and gross abuse of discretion by the prosecutor"); see also

Rodriguez, 466 N.J. Super. at 87 (finding the "defendant failed to establish that

the prosecutor's rejection of his request for a Graves Act waiver constituted a

patent and gross abuse of discretion").

      As the trial court stated, the prosecutor's denial "[wa]s entitled to great

deference and the [c]ourt [did] not substitute its judgment for that of the

[p]rosecutor." To the extent we have not commented on any further arguments

raised by defendant, we conclude they lack "sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-3359-21
                                      25