STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DIANE MAZZEI
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5435-05T15435-05T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DIANE MAZZEI,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 29, 2007 - Decided February 8, 2007
Before Judges S.L. Reisner and C.L. Miniman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Municipal Appeal No. 58-11-05.
Diane Mazzei, appellant pro se.
David J. Weaver, Sussex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Robin M. Lawrie, Assistant Sussex County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Diane Mazzei, appeals from her conviction in the Law Division for criminal trespass, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3b(2). We affirm.
Defendant was convicted in municipal court of trespassing on the premises of a private beach club at Lake Lackawanna. Defendant admitted that she previously had belonged to the club but had not been a member for the past several years. Testimony in the municipal court established that the property was posted with signs indicating that it was private property, and that defendant was aware that it was private property. Two witnesses, including the president of the beach club, testified that they observed defendant's daughter swimming in the lake and observed defendant on the beach, and later on an adjacent private walkway, watching her daughter swimming. The municipal judge found that defendant was trespassing. The Law Division judge reached the same conclusion.
Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the Law Division judge's determination is supported by substantial credible evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A); State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). Defendant's appellate contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-5435-05T1
February 8, 2007
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.