STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GARY PLUTA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0898-05T20898-05T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARY R. PLUTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 21, 2006 - Decided March 31, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Essex

County, Indictment No. 04-83.

Shebell & Shebell, attorneys for

appellant (Peter M. O'Mara, on the

brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Joan E. Love, Assistant Prosecutor,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Gary Pluta performed home renovations for a customer that unfortunately ended in litigation. The Cedar Grove police department, responding quickly to a call from the customer, confronted Pluta shortly after he had allegedly planted a sign on the customer's front lawn that read "No Cash." There is no dispute that Pluta was intoxicated at that time, and that one of his cars was parked in a driveway across the street. The officers arrested Pluta for driving while intoxicated, among other offenses, and Judge Dennis Carey convicted him after conducting a trial de novo based upon the record developed before Cedar Grove Municipal Court Judge Nicholas Brindisi, who had also found Pluta guilty.

On appeal, Pluta raises only one issue, "the State can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant operated the vehicle." We reject this argument as there was sufficient credible evidence for Judge Carey to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had, shortly before the police arrived on the scene, driven the car to the customer's house. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161-62 (1964).

Although Pluta claimed he had walked to the scene, one of the arresting officers testified that the hood of the car was still warm within a half hour after the initial confrontation with defendant, which occurred on a cold winter evening around midnight. Also, the customer testified that he had called the police after he saw Pluta drive down the street, park across the street, and pull a sign out of the vehicle's rear hatch.

As Judge Carey remarked, "there still is no logical explanation as to why that car would be across the street from the defendant at midnight when the defendant was trespassing on somebody's property. It does not make sense." The only logical explanation was that Pluta drove the car to the scene, and, therefore, Judge Carey rightly convicted Pluta of driving while intoxicated. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0898-05T2

March 31, 2006