STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RYAN McCALL

Annotate this Case

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.