STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARMANDO PIOPPI, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2771-06T52771-06T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO PIOPPI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________

 

Argued November 14, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Yannotti.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, MCA No. 0076-06.

Richard V. Gilbert argued the cause for appellant (Evan F. Nappen, attorney; Mr. Gilbert, on the brief).

Jack J. Lipari, Assistant Atlantic County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Theodore F.L. Housel, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Lipari, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violations of N.J.S.A. 23:4-43 and N.J.S.A. 23:4-47, which was entered by the Law Division on January 9, 2007 based on a de novo review of the municipal court record. Defendant presents the following arguments:

I. BUENA BOROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MATTER UNDER N.J.S. 23:10-2; CONSEQUENTLY, THE ATLANTIC COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE TRIAL DE NOVO.

II. THE STATE FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT KILLED THE DEER IN VIOLATION OF N.J.S. 23:4-43, AND THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING OTHERWISE.

III. ABSENT AN ACCURATE DETERMINATION OF GUILT UNDER N.J.S. 23:4-43, APPELLANT'S GUILT UNDER N.J.S. 23:4-47 COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED.

IV. THE STATE'S "EXPERT" WITNESS HOLDS NO QUALIFICATION AS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD IN WHICH HE TESTIFIED, AND HIS TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY EITHER COURT BELOW.

 
We reject these arguments and affirm defendant's convictions of the regulatory offenses proscribed by N.J.S.A. 23:4-43 and N.J.S.A. 23:4-47 substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Neustadter's December 21, 2006 letter opinion. Judge Neustadter's factual findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence present in the record. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 472 (1999). Defendant's legal arguments do not warrant any additional discussion beyond the analysis contained in Judge Neustadter's opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2771-06T5

November 23, 2007