STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VESSELIN DITTRICH

Annotate this Case

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3779-11T1




STATE OF NEW JERSEY,


Plaintiff-Respondent,


v.


VESSELIN DITTRICH,


Defendant-Appellant.


________________________________________________________________

December 18, 2012

 

Submitted December 3, 2012 - Decided

 

Before Judges Parrillo and Maven.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Municipal Appeal No. 01-12.

 

Vesselin Dittrich, appellant pro se.

 

Gaetano T. Gregory, Acting Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monalisa A. Tawfik, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

 

PER CURIAM


On February 17, 2012, a Law Division judge dismissed defendant's municipal court appeal as moot, following the municipal court's dismissal of the criminal complaint. We affirm.

On August 9, 2010, defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct after refusing to cooperate with officers as they questioned him about a reported claim of harassment. On January 21, 2011, a harassment complaint was filed against defendant arising from the August incident. On December 2011, the State moved to dismiss the complaint based on the victim's lack of willingness to proceed. In granting the motion, the municipal court judge held that the police officers had probable cause to arrest at the time of the incident.

Defendant appealed challenging the finding of probable cause. In dismissing the de novo appeal, the Law Division judge noted that "all . . . underlying matter[s] in Municipal Court were dismissed. . . . [T]his [c]ourt has no jurisdiction to hear your appeal."

On appeal, defendant raises several constitutional and procedural issues, all of which lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only that New Jersey Court Rule 3:23 grants appeals from judgments of convictions. Since there was no conviction, there was no judgment from which to appeal.

A

ffirmed.

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.