STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH M. DOLAN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3795-06T53795-06T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH M. DOLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

 

Submitted December 4, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Winkelstein.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Municipal Appeal No. 45-06.

Levow & Associates, attorneys for appellant (Jill R. Cohen and Evan M. Levow, of counsel and on the brief).

Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Angela Gingerelli, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty in the Union City Municipal Court of driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The court sentenced defendant to a three-month suspension of his driver's license, twelve hours in an Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center, a $300 fine and the statutorily mandated fees and assessments. On a de novo appeal, the Law Division also found defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and reimposed the same sentence imposed by the municipal court.

On appeal to this court, defendant presents the following arguments:

I. THE LAW DIVISION INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE BREATHALYZER RESULTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT, AND, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE RESULTS, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT; MOREOVER, THIS COURT CANNOT DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THE RESULTS OF THIS ERROR ON THE VERDICT.

II. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MUNICIPAL COURT OR THE LAW DIVISION CONSIDERED IMPROPER EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT POSSESSED A KNIFE AT THE TIME OF THE STOP.

III. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOWER COURT AND THE LAW DIVISION GAVE IMPROPER WEIGHT TO DEFENDANT'S WORDS REGARDING WHAT HE HAD TO DRINK THAT EVENING.

We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment of conviction substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Schultz's March 14, 2007 oral opinion. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We only note that there is no basis in Judge Schultz's oral opinion for defendant's claims that the judge considered the results of the breathalyzer tests, which the municipal court had ruled were inadmissible, and defendant's possession of a knife, in finding that defendant operated his car while under the influence of alcohol.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3795-06T5

December 13, 2007