STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEVIN POTTER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

A-5109-11T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN POTTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

April 20, 2015

Argued September 16, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Nugent and Manahan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Municipal Appeal No. 22-11 in A-4923-11 and Indictment No. 11-01-00026 in A-5109-11.

Kevin Potter argued the cause pro se.

G. Harrison Walters, Assistant Prosecutor argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Walters, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

These two appeals which were calendared back-to-back but now are consolidated for disposition in a single opinion concern defendant's appeals of convictions emanating from disputes with and actions he took against his neighbors. We affirm in all respects.

In the first matter (A-4923-11), defendant was alleged to have entered onto the neighboring property, where he used a chainsaw to cut down an oak tree, and then threatened his neighbor. He was charged in municipal court with defiant trespass, criminal mischief, and harassment, and found guilty after a trial; he was also found guilty by a Law Division judge after a trial de novo. Fines and monetary sanctions were imposed.

In the second matter (A-5109-11), defendant was indicted and charged with fourth-degree stalking, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b), of his neighbor's wife; on the State's motion, this matter was downgraded to a petty disorderly persons offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. At the conclusion of a bench trial, defendant was found guilty of harassment, and sentenced to a four-year probationary term conditioned on, among other things, his incarceration in the county jail for thirty days.

In the first appeal, defendant argues

I. BECAUSE THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, FAMILY COURT, WITHOUT VENUE, JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY UNLAWFULLY INTERVENED IN THE ADJUDICATION OF A CUMBERLAND COUNTY, LAW DIVISION, DE NOVO APPEAL, THE VERDICTS ISSUED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE INFERIOR FAMILY COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND VACATED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

II. BECAUSE THE RECORD ON APPEAL SHOWS THAT THE UNDERLYING MUNICIPAL COURT OFFENSES WERE PREVIOUSLY CONSOLIDATED WITH A COMPANION INDICTMENT, WHICH WAS DISMISSED AND NOT REINSTATED ANEW, THE LOWER COURT ERRED ON ITS DE NOVO REVIEW. HENCE, THE VERDICTS AGAINST APPELLANT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND VACATED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

III. BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE AGAINST APPELLANT, UPON DE NOVO REVIEW, THE VERDICTS RENDERED ARE AGAINST THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED AND VACATED.

In the second appeal, defendant argues

I. BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE MANDATES OF R. 3:1-5, AND R. 3:14-2, DEFENDANT WAS UNLAWFULLY PROSECUTED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BY A FOREIGN COURT THAT WAS VOID OF JURISDICTION, VENUE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ITS UNJUST VERDICT AGAINST HIM. HENCE, DEFENDANT'S UNLAWFUL VERDICT, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE MUST BE REVERSED, WITH PREJUDICE, AS A MATTER OF LAW.

II. BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE FAILED TO ALLOW INDIGENT PRO SE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO SEEK COUNSEL TO AN AMENDED CHARGE OF CONSEQUENCE, WHICH PRODUCED AN UNJUST RESULT, THE VERDICT AGAINST APPELLANT SHOULD BE REVERSED.

III. BECAUSE THE STATU[T]E OF LIM[I]TATIONS PROHIBIT[S] STALE CHARGES FROM BEING BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED ON THE DAY AND START OF TRIAL, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF COMMITMENT WAS UNJUST AND SHOULD BE REVERSED AND VACATED.

IV. BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE APPELLANT'S HARASSMENT CONVICTION [] SHOULD BE REVERSED AND VACATED, AS A MATTER OF LAW.

V. BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FILED IN THIS CASE IS TAINTED BY MALFEASANCE PREDICATED UPON THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DID NOT PROSECUTE, CONVICT OR SENTENCE DEFENDANT, THE VERDICT TO PUNISH THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE IS PATENTLY UNJUST, EXCESSIVE AND AN ABUSE TO DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS, WHICH NOW MUST BE REVERSED AND VACATED AS A MATTER OF LAW.

After close examination of the record and the parties' submissions in light of the issues raised, we find insufficient merit in defendant's arguments in both appeals to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.