STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RANDALL VREELAND

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0418-05T50418-05T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RANDALL VREELAND,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted July 19, 2006 - Decided August 8, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Passaic County, Municipal Appeal

No. 4551.

Brian R. Donnelly, attorney for appellant.

Paul M. Selitto, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Following a trial in the West Milford Municipal Court, defendant Randall Vreeland was convicted of offering a false instrument for filing, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-3(b). The complainant, Richard Vreeland, is defendant's brother. Defendant allegedly violated the law by submitting annual renewal applications for Richard's septic excavating license without Richard's knowledge or approval.

To obtain a municipal septic installer's license, it is necessary to complete an application, pass a written test, pay a license fee in the amount of $100, and post a $10,000 licensing bond. Richard obtained a license in November 2000. At that time, the brothers owned and operated Vreeland Excavating, Inc. Licenses are not transferable, and they must be renewed annually. To renew a septic installer's license, the West Milford Health Department requires a license renewal application, payment of the $100 fee, and submission of a $10,000 bond.

Richard testified that when he renewed his septic installer's license on November 20, 2000, his brother, Randall, did not have a valid septic installer's license. According to Richard, the brothers ceased operating the excavating business some time in 2001, and he did not renew his license or authorize anyone else to renew his license. A municipal employee confirmed, however, that Richard's license had been renewed each year, and Richard testified that the check from Vreeland Excavating, Inc., which accompanied the renewal application in 2003, was signed by defendant Randall Vreeland.

Randall elected not to testify at his municipal court trial. On appeal to the Law Division, defendant's attorney presented the following argument:

There's no identification that my client was the individual who offered this document for filing, the documents which are claimed to be the subject of this . . . action. But, more importantly, the statute requires that the document be false. There was nothing false about the document. It contained no false information.

Richard Vreeland had a license, continued to have a license. And the statute requires a false document. There was none here. And quite simply that's our argument.

There is no question that Richard's annual license renewal application was filed and maintained as a public record by the West Milford Health Department. Furthermore, a health department employee testified that the health department keeps a current list of "septic installer licensed people" available for public inspection. Accordingly, it is clear that members of the public rely on the truthfulness of the septic installer's license applications as well as the applications to renew septic installer's licenses.

The Law Division provided the following explanation for its decision:

The record reflects that Richard Vreeland had taken the exam necessary to obtain a septic installer license and subsequently received his license. The license was issued in the name of Richard Vreeland. He then renewed his license on one occasion intending to use it for the benefit of Vreeland Excavating, Inc., a company where he and his brother, the appellant/defendant, were principals. But, Richard left Vreeland Excavating, Inc., in November of 2001 and began another company. The Department of Health continued to mail renewal applications to Vreeland Excavating, Inc., because that was the address on record for Richard. But, when Richard was no longer working for Vreeland Excavating Inc., the Health Department of the West Milford Township continued to receive renewal applications and consequently continued to issue licenses in the name of Richard Vreeland who testified that he had never applied for said renewals. All of the renewal applications in question arrived with a check which was signed in the name of the defendant. Richard Vreeland testified the signature on the application (presumably the check) was his brother's, the appellant/defendant. The application renewals also contained a bond from Selective Insurance Company of America issued on behalf of Vreeland Excavating, Inc., for $10,000. This Court, as did the court below, finds the testimony of Richard Vreeland to be credible. This Court also finds the testimony of Ms. Ackerman to be credible.

Both the State and appellant do not cite case law and instead focus their arguments on the legal definition of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-3b or whether or not sufficient evidence existed to convict the defendant of violating the statute. Appellant argues first that no false documents were ever submitted because no signature appeared on the application and according to Ms. Ackerman's testimony anyone could mail in the application. Essentially, appellant is arguing that because Richard Vreeland was entitled to renew his license, and it was his license that was renewed then there was nothing false or misleading about the application. This Court rejects that argument. Merely because a signature is not required on an application, it does not logically follow that the application cannot be false or misleading. During the time period where . . . Richard Vreeland's applications were renewed, the Department of Health's records indicated that Vreeland Excavating, Inc., (which was run and owned by Randall Vreeland) employed a person who was licensed to install septic tanks. The information submitted was misleading or false because Richard was not working at Vre[e]land Excavating at the time. Moreover, the [D]epartment of [H]ealth erroneously believed that Richard Vreeland wished to renew his license.

Obviously, the Department of Health has an interest in not permitting "anyone" from renewing a license. This court interprets Ms. Ackerman's testimony to mean that anyone can renew the license with the permission of the person who is actually licensed. Obviously, the Department of Health has an interest in protecting the public health, safety, and the environment. For that reason, they require persons who wish to install licenses to take an exam before they can be licensed.

Appellant/defendant also contends that although his name appeared on the checks submitted for the renewal applications, no evidence was presented that demonstrates that the defendant had either prepared or presented the documents for filing. Pursuant to the statute, one is guilty of violating the statute if he knowingly "offers or presents" a false statement or false information to a public servant or public office. The record reflects that a check was issued in the name of the appellant/defendant for the purpose of renewing his brother's septic installer license, when his brother Richard was no longer in business with him and without his authorization. The checks were cashed and the Department of Health issued a license, which was mailed to the defendant/appellant's place of employment. A careful review of the direct and circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that appellant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of violating the statute.

Our scope of review in this case is limited. Appeals from municipal court convictions are heard first in the Law Division. R. 3:23; R. 7:13-1; State v. Golin, 363 N.J. Super. 474, 481 (App. Div. 2003) (citing State v. Buchan, 119 N.J. Super. 297, 298 (App. Div. 1972)). Review in the Law Division is de novo on the record, R. 3:23-8(a), although the reviewing court should defer to the credibility findings of the municipal judge who had the "opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have a 'feel' of the case," State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964). Upon further appeal to this court, we "consider only the action of the Law Division, and not that of the municipal court." State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244, 251 (App. Div. 2001) (citing State v. Joas, 32 N.J. 179, 184 (1961)). It is improper for the Appellate Division to weigh the evidence, assess credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence as if it were a court of first instance. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471-72 (1999).

Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the Law Division's findings "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record," State v. Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 161-62, and we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Guzman in his written decision dated August 15, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-0418-05T5

August 8, 2006