STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF T.W.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3065-05T43065-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE INTEREST OF

T.W.,

Juvenile-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 24, 2006 - Decided November 8, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and R.B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,

FJ-03-2464-05.

Yvonne-Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Sylvia M. Orenstein, Assistant

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the

brief).

Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent State of New Jersey

(Jason D. Saunders, Assistant Prosecutor, of

counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

At the conclusion of a trial in the Chancery Division, Family Part, T.W., a juvenile, then age sixteen, was found to be delinquent for conduct which, if it had been committed by an adult, would have constituted the petty disorderly offense of harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4b. The judge imposed certain penalties which are not at issue and a one-year term of probation. T.W. appeals arguing:

POINT ONE

BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE JUVENILE WAS GUILTY OF HARASSMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE JUDGE ERRED IN HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND MUST BE VACATED.

POINT TWO

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING A TERM OF PROBATION THAT WAS TWICE THE LENGTH OF THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND APPROVED BY THE PROSECUTOR; MOREOVER, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ADJOURNING THE DISPOSITION OF THE JUVENILE'S CASE FOR TWELVE MONTHS, PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-43b(1).

After carefully considering the record and brief, we are satisfied that T.W.'s arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2). However, we add the following comments.

The victim, a thirteen-year old girl, S.P., was with other children in a park across from S.P.'s house. S.P. testified that T.W. called her over, and said "I wanted to know if this hurts." He then grabbed her breast and twisted it. She left and complained to her mother about what had happened. C.S., a friend of T.W., testified that he, T.W., and S.P. were at the park, as were other children, but that T.W. did not grab S.P. Those were the only two witnesses, and the judge found S.P. to be credible. In essence, T.W. argues that inconsistencies in S.P.'s testimony and C.S.'s contradictory testimony created reasonable doubt. The judge found otherwise, and we perceive no basis for rejecting his analysis of the evidence.

Of course the judge was not bound by the recommendations of either the prosecutor or the probation department, both having suggested probation for six months. Therefore, even putting aside that the issue is now moot, we perceive no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3065-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 8, 2006