The New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion in State v. Tyrone K. Ellison, Docket No. A-2905-22, decided August 19, 2025. This case highlights the serious consequences of kidnapping and sexual assault charges while also clarifying important constitutional questions about the use of cell phone passcodes, the joinder of drug and violent crime charges, and the limits of persistent offender sentencing in New Jersey. For defendants and their families in Camden, Trenton, Cherry Hill, and Gloucester County, the decision provides a roadmap of how appellate courts review convictions and sentencing, and it demonstrates how constitutional protections play out in real-world criminal trials.
Ellison’s case began in February 2021, when a man identified by initials as R.B. missed entry into a drug treatment program in Marlboro, later became stranded in Newark, and encountered Ellison, who offered him a ride and a place to stay. According to testimony, what initially appeared to be an act of kindness escalated into days of captivity, forced sexual contact, threats with a firearm, and the introduction of heroin. R.B. eventually escaped after secretly messaging his mother for help. The Morris County grand jury later indicted Ellison for first-degree kidnapping under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b)(2), aggravated criminal sexual contact under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a), aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1, and possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5. A seven-day jury trial in 2022 resulted in convictions for kidnapping, sexual contact, possession and distribution of CDS, and the lesser included offense of simple assault. The trial court imposed a 60-year extended term sentence under New Jersey’s persistent offender statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), along with consecutive terms for the drug convictions and parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On appeal, Ellison challenged his conviction and sentence on three grounds. The first issue involved the suppression of cell phone evidence. While being processed at the police station, Ellison requested access to his phone to retrieve phone numbers. A detective stood nearby and watched Ellison enter his passcode. The officer memorized the code, later recorded it, and provided it to the prosecutor’s office, which used it to access the contents of the phone pursuant to a communications data warrant. Ellison argued that this amounted to a surreptitious violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Appellate Division disagreed, emphasizing that Ellison voluntarily entered the code without compulsion or trickery. Relying on State v. Andrews, 243 N.J. 447 (2020), the panel explained that the so-called “foregone conclusion” exception would have authorized a court to compel production of the passcode anyway, because the State already knew of the phone’s existence, Ellison’s possession of it, and his ability to operate it. The court analogized the observation of the passcode to the plain view doctrine recognized under Fourth Amendment law, concluding that Ellison had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone in the presence of law enforcement. The court also cited the doctrine of inevitable discovery, noting that prosecutors could have lawfully obtained the passcode through judicial order if necessary. In short, the evidence was admissible, and the suppression motion was properly denied.
The second appellate issue concerned whether the drug charges should have been severed from the kidnapping and sexual assault counts. Ellison argued that allowing the jury to hear evidence of CDS possession and distribution unfairly prejudiced him by painting him as a drug dealer. The Appellate Division noted that under Rule 3:7-6, charges arising from the same transaction or common scheme may be joined, and under Rule 3:15-2, they may only be severed if the prejudice outweighs the probative value. The panel found that the drug activity was deeply intertwined with the kidnapping and sexual assaults, because R.B. testified that he was offered drugs to remain compliant and was later given heroin after being assaulted. Evidence seized from Ellison’s phone further confirmed distribution activity. As the court explained, evidence of the drug crimes was admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to show motive and intent, and the joinder of charges served judicial economy without depriving Ellison of a fair trial. The lack of a specific curative instruction on the drug counts was not reversible error, since the jury had been properly instructed on the State’s burden of proof and returned a mixed verdict that included a lesser included offense, demonstrating independent evaluation of the evidence.
The final and most consequential issue involved sentencing. Ellison was sentenced as a persistent offender to 60 years in prison. While the Appellate Division initially upheld the convictions, it vacated the extended term sentence based on recent precedent. In Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury, not a judge, to decide whether prior convictions justify enhanced sentencing. The Appellate Division applied Erlinger in State v. Carlton, 480 N.J. Super. 311 (App. Div. 2024), requiring bifurcated proceedings in New Jersey. Because Ellison’s extended term sentence had been imposed by a judge without a jury finding, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the new constitutional rule.
The decision in State v. Ellison carries significant implications for defendants and families navigating the New Jersey criminal justice system. The ruling on cell phone passcodes underscores the limited privacy protections available once a phone is in police custody. Defendants who voluntarily unlock their devices in front of officers risk waiving constitutional protections. For defense attorneys, this decision reinforces the importance of advising clients on their rights during custodial processing and challenging cell phone searches aggressively at trial. The court’s ruling on joinder highlights how drug charges may be tried alongside violent offenses when they are factually connected, raising the stakes for defendants who face multiple allegations. Finally, the persistent offender ruling provides a critical opening for sentencing relief. Defendants who received extended terms under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) without a jury determination may now have grounds for resentencing under Erlinger and Carlton. This is particularly important in cases involving kidnapping, aggravated assault, and CDS distribution, where extended terms can add decades of additional prison time.
For families in Camden, Trenton, Cherry Hill, and Gloucester County, the lessons of this case are practical and urgent. Motions to suppress evidence can make or break a trial, and cell phone evidence is now a central battleground in modern prosecutions. Motions to sever drug and violent charges must be strategically framed to preserve fairness arguments for appeal. And sentencing appeals may dramatically change the outcome of a case if persistent offender status was imposed without the safeguards now required by federal and state law.
At Ratliff Jackson LLP, we focus on protecting clients in the most serious criminal cases, from trial through appeal. Whether you are facing kidnapping, sexual assault, or drug distribution charges, or you believe your sentence was enhanced without proper constitutional findings, we are prepared to challenge the State’s case and protect your rights. The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Ellison shows how appellate advocacy can change outcomes, even after a conviction, and why experienced counsel is critical when your liberty is on the line. If you or a loved one are facing serious charges in New Jersey, contact Ratliff Jackson LLP today to discuss your defense and appeal options.