RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2000-18T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VIDROLE MONACE, a/k/a JAMES MONACE, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Argued telephonically May 19, 2020 – Decided July 14, 2020 Before Judges Yannotti, Hoffman and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 13-08-1946, 15-06-1487 and 18-02-0646. Kevin Walker, First Assistant Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Kevin Walker, of counsel and on the briefs). Emily M. M. Pirro, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Emily M. M. Pirro, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM After a jury found defendant guilty of the 2012 sexual assault of his then sixteen-year-old niece, G.G. (Gwen),1 the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate eleven-and-a-half-year prison term, with an eight-and-a-half-year parole bar, pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the Law Division on December 4, 2018. On appeal, defendant argues: 1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; 2) the judge erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on count four; 3) certain testimony of the Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner (SANE) should not have been admitted; 4) the judge violated his due process and compulsory process rights by improperly interfering with his decision to testify; 5) the assistant prosecutor improperly asked defendant to vouch for the credibility of Gwen; and 6) the judge imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we reject these arguments and affirm. 1 Because of the sexual nature of the crimes, we use initials and a pseudonym to protect the privacy of the victim. R. 1:38-3(c)(12). A-2000-18T3 2 I In light of defendant's speedy trial claim, we begin with a summary of the procedural history of this case to provide context for the more than five-year lapse between defendant's arrest and trial. On August 12, 2013, an Essex County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 13-08-1946 charging defendant with first-degree sexual assault (vaginal penetration and "actor had supervisory or disciplinary power"), N.J.S.A. 2C:14 - 2(c)(3)(b) (count one); second-degree endangering welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) (count two); first-degree sexual assault (digital penetration and "actor had supervisory or disciplinary power"), N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(3)(b) (count three); second-degree endangering welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) (counts four and five); fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14- 3(b)(3)(b) (counts six and seven); and third-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a) (count eight). On June 29, 2015, superseding Indictment No. 15-06-1487 added five additional counts charging defendant with second-degree witness tampering, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals