STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH DUMANOV

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0180-04T20180-04T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH DUMANOV,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted December 14, 2005 - Decided April 4, 2006

Before Judges Wecker and Graves.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County,

26-11-03.

Joseph Dumanov, appellant pro se.

David J. Weaver, Sussex County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Joseph M. Corazza,

Assistant Sussex County Prosecutor, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from his conviction and denial of his motion for reconsideration after a trial do novo in the Law Division. In a well-reasoned decision placed on the record on July 30, 2004, Judge N. Peter Conforti found defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-127, which provides: "No vehicle shall back or make a turn in a street, if by so doing it interferes with other vehicles, but shall go around a block or to a street sufficiently wide to turn in without backing." The judge did, however, merge the charge of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-82, failing to keep to the right. On August 4, 2004, in response to defendant's additional submission, Judge Conforti explained his reasons for denying relief from that conviction.

The relevant evidence is undisputed. Defendant had been proceeding north on Sussex County Route 613 when he attempted to make a turn at the end of a concrete divider in the road, in order to pull into a parking space on the southbound side of the road. At that point, there were two sets of double yellow lines forming a triangle at the end of the concrete divider. As he turned left across the yellow lines, he failed to yield to another vehicle headed south on Route 613. Defendant's right front headlight collided with the left front of the other vehicle. Defendant not only crossed two sets of double yellow lines while turning, but plainly interfered with another vehicle as he made a turn in the street.

In the municipal court, defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the municipal police and the applicability of Title 39 on the ground that the county road at that point was subject to a resolution providing for maintenance by a private association. Defendant repeated those challenges in the Law Division. On the offense itself, defendant maintained that it was his right to turn at that point, despite the two sets of double yellow lines, and that the other driver should have yielded to him.

We have reviewed the record thoroughly in light of defendant's contentions and find insufficient merit in his arguments to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2). The record supports the findings and the conviction. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). We therefore affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Conforti on the record on July 30 and on August 4, 2004.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0180-04T2

April 4, 2006