STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWIN OLIVERA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDWIN OLIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

September 3, 2015

Submitted July 14, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Municipal Appeal No. 43-13.

Udren Law Offices, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Veroneque A.T. Blake, on the brief).

Mary Eva Colalillo, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Patrick D. Isbill, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a trial in the municipal court and trial de novo on the municipal court record in the Law Division, defendant Edwin Olivera was convicted of failure to produce an insurance card, N.J.S.A. 39:3-29; failure to produce a valid registration, N.J.S.A. 39:3-29; and obstruction of justice, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1a, a disorderly persons offense, and sentenced to pay fines totaling $562, court costs of $96, a $50 VCCB assessment and a $75 SNSF assessment. Defendant contends his obstruction conviction should be reversed because the failure to produce insurance card and registration is insufficient to support a separate violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1a, and he lacked the requisite intent to obstruct in any event. Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and controlling law, we affirm.

The operative facts are uncontested. At defendant's municipal trial the State presented two witnesses. Officer Roseboro of the Merchantville Police Department testified that he was monitoring traffic in Merchantville when he ran a random license plate check on the silver Jaguar defendant was driving. His inquiry revealed the registered owner, who appeared from the photograph on his mobile terminal to be the same person as the driver, was reported to have a suspended license.

The officer pulled behind the Jaguar, which was now headed toward Camden, and activated his overhead lights. The driver did not stop, but continued for about five blocks, eventually pulling over in Camden. Officer Roseboro approached the driver and requested his license, registration, and insurance card. Defendant refused to supply the documents, instead telling the officer he believed he had been stopped illegally and insisting to speak with Officer Roseboro's supervisor. The officer obliged him, and Sergeant Talarico responded to the scene.

Despite repeated requests, defendant refused to provide the sergeant with his license, registration, or insurance card. The sergeant told defendant he would be charged with obstruction of justice if he did not provide the requested documentation. Nonetheless, defendant did not produce the documents and was told he was under arrest for obstruction of justice. When the officers told defendant to get out of the car, he refused saying they needed a warrant to remove him. After the officers told defendant they would forcibly remove him from the car if necessary, he finally complied.

On the way to the station house, defendant stated that he was being kidnapped and deprived of his civil rights. At the station house, defendant refused to provide his name, birthdate or any other any personal identifying information, refused to sign the Miranda1 card and would not comply with attempts to record his fingerprints.2 The defense stipulated that the events at the station transpired as Officer Roseboro testified. Officer Roseboro admitted on cross-examination that defendant never attempted to flee, lunge at the officers or physically attack them. Sergeant Talarico's testimony was consistent with Officer Roseboro's account.

Following defendant's trial de novo in the Law Division, the judge found defendant guilty of the charges and imposed the same sentence as had the municipal court judge. The Law Division judge found that defendant was lawfully stopped and refused to produce his driving credentials. He rejected defendant's argument that the officer, part of the Merchantville police department, was without jurisdiction to stop defendant in Camden.

Finally, the judge agreed with the municipal court judge that defendant's refusal to cooperate with a lawful stop and subsequent arrest, including his initial failure to pull over, refusal to get out of the car, refusal to produce his credentials, including the driver's license he had in his pocket, refusal to provide any personal identifying information, and failure to cooperate in the taking of his fingerprints established that defendant was guilty of acts amounting to an obstruction of justice.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal

POINT I

THE STATE'S CONVICTION OF APPELLANT UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) SHOULD BE VACATED BECAUSE APPELLANT'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE A VALID REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE CARD DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(A).

POINT II

APPELLANT DID NOT ACT PURPOSELY WITH INTENT SO AS TO CREATE THE VIOLATION UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).

We find these arguments to be utterly without merit.

The statute under which defendant was convicted, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1a, provides

A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act.

We held thirty years ago that refusing an officer's request to show driving credentials and failing to comply with the officer's directions are independently unlawful acts sufficient to support a conviction for obstructing the administration of justice. State v. Perlstein, 206 N.J. Super.246, 253 (App. Div. 1985) (holding that defendant "engaged in [an] independently unlawful act[] when she refused to show her driving credentials"). Because "a person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct if it his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature[,] N.J.S.A.2C:2-2b(1)," we also held that refusing to show the officer one's credentials and refusing his directions constitutes purposefully obstructing the performance of the officer's duties in violation of N.J.S.A.2C:29-1a. Id.at 253-54.

As the essential facts are undisputed and the law clear, we affirm defendant's convictions.

Affirmed.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

2 The officers confirmed defendant's identity from his driver's license, recovered from his pocket in the search incident to arrest.