STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RYAN McCALL
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5595-07T45595-07T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RYAN McCALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________
Submitted June 30, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman and Wefing.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Municipal Docket No. A-68-07.
Carmen A. Malignaggi, attorney for appellant.
Sean F. Dalton, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joseph H. Enos, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant was found guilty in the Logan Township Municipal Court of driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and sentenced as a first offender to a seven-month suspension of his motor vehicle license, twelve hours at an Intoxicated Driver's Resource Center, and the statutorily mandated fine and fees. On a de novo appeal, the Law Division also found defendant guilty of this motor vehicle violation and reimposed the same sentence imposed by the municipal court.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
POINT I: THE GLOVE BOX DEFENSE WAS
IMPROPERLY REJECTED BY THE
TRIAL COURT.
POINT II: STATE V. DEFRANCISCO REQUIRES
A NOT GUILTY FINDING.
We reject these arguments and affirm defendant's conviction substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Geiger's oral opinion of June 25, 2008. The judge's factual findings regarding defendant's operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol are supported by sufficient credible evidence. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999). Defendant's arguments do not warrant any discussion in addition to the factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in Judge Geiger's opinion.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-5595-07T4
July 24, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.