STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAJKUMAR JAGADEESHAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3174-12T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RAJKUMAR JAGADEESHAN,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________________

December 18, 2013

Submitted December 4, 2013 - Decided

Before Judges Grall and Nugent

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Municipal Appeal No. 12-011.

Fredric M. Knapp, Acting Morris County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Paula Jordao, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Scott J. Marum, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Following a trial de novo, a judge found defendant, Rajkumar Jagadeeshan, guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a). The judge based his decision on the arresting officer's observations of defendant's breath, appearance, and demeanor, as well as defendant's inability to properly perform several field sobriety tests. The judge did not find defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more, but instead suppressed the results of an Alcotest because the arresting officer had not given defendant a copy of the alcohol influence report (AIR) before releasing him. According to the AIR, defendant's BAC was 0.15 percent.

Having found defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the judge suspended defendant's license for three months, ordered that defendant be detained for twelve hours in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and imposed appropriate fines and assessments.

Defendant did not appeal. The State filed this appeal, contending that the judge committed reversible error by suppressing the AIR. The issue is moot. Cf. State v. Lyles, 291 N.J. Super. 517, 530 (App. Div. 1996), certif. den. sub nom. State v. R.F.L., 148 N.J. 60 (1997) (dismissing as moot the State's cross-appeal from the trial court's holding that fresh-complaint evidence was inadmissible, in view of the court's affirmance of defendant's rape conviction). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed as moot.