Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0444-16T3
07-10-2017
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RODERICK CYKTOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Scholl, Whittlesey & Gruenberg, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Whittlesey, on the brief). Anthony P. Kearns, III, Hunterdon County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David P. Culley, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Municipal Appeal No. 4A-2016-K1. Scholl, Whittlesey & Gruenberg, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Whittlesey, on the brief). Anthony P. Kearns, III, Hunterdon County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David P. Culley, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from his conviction of driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Judge Angela F. Borkowski conducted a de novo review of the record, found defendant guilty, and rendered a comprehensive written decision.
On appeal, defendant raises the following point:
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN HER FINDING THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT'S GUILT[] BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
When a defendant appeals a decision made by a municipal court to the Law Division, the court is required to conduct a de novo review of the record, giving "due regard to the municipal judge's opportunity to view the witnesses and assess credibility." State v. Golin, 363 N.J. Super. 474, 481 (App. Div. 2003) (citing State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964)). On appeal from the Law Division's decision, we must determine whether the Law Division judge's findings "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 162). However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
After carefully considering the record, standard of review, and briefs, we affirm for the thorough reasons expressed by the judge, and conclude that defendant's argument is "without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION