Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4385-13T2
05-24-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAWRENCE B. EBERT, Defendant-Appellant.
Lawrence B. Ebert, appellant pro se. DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Brian C. Glicos, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-1615-13. Lawrence B. Ebert, appellant pro se. DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Brian C. Glicos, on the brief). PER CURIAM
On July 1, 2013, the Zoning Officer of the Township of Bridgewater issued defendant Lawrence B. Ebert a summons charging him with maintaining an unlicensed, inoperable, red pickup truck under a tarp in his driveway, in violation of Municipal Zoning Ordinance 105-3(D). The matter was originally tried in the Bridgewater Municipal Court on November 16, 2013. The Zoning Officer, defendant, and his wife testified. After considering the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses' testimony, the municipal court found defendant guilty and imposed a $500 fine and $30 court cost.
Ordinance 105-3(D) reads:
It shall be unlawful for property owner, possessor or occupant of lands to store, keep or accumulate, upon such lands, any motorized vehicles, automobiles or machines in need of repair so as not to be readily operated under their own power or requiring substantial repairs or not currently licensed. However, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the storage or the repairing of vehicles which are kept in an enclosed place or garage.
Defendant thereafter filed a timely appeal for a de novo review in the Law Division pursuant to Rule 3:23-8(a). The case came before Superior Court Judge Hany A. Mawla on March 14, 2014. After considering the arguments of counsel, and reviewing de novo the record developed as well as the evidence presented before the municipal court, the Law Division found defendant guilty and imposed the same monetary penalties. Judge Mawla set forth his factual findings and conclusions of law in a well-written, comprehensive memorandum of opinion dated March 21, 2014, which he attached to the final judgment which reflects the imposition of the $500 fine and $30 court cost.
In summary, Judge Mawla found the State proved the following core facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant owns the real property in Bridgewater identified in the summons. The red pickup truck in contention was towed onto the property before 2008 by defendant's wife. The vehicle is unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured and is kept by defendant in his driveway covered by a tarp. In this appeal, defendant disputes these factual findings and raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE JUDGMENT AND LATER ORDER WERE ACCOMPANIED BY INCORRECT FINDINGS OF FACT, AND NO CONCLUSIONS OF RELEVANT LAW, AND DO NOT COMPLY WITH RULE 1:7-4.
POINT II
APPELLANT PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL DISPARATE TREATMENT WITH NO UNDERLYING RATIONAL BASIS, ESTABLISHING THAT THE BRIDGEWATER ORDINANCE, AS ENFORCED, DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION.
POINT III
VIEWING THIS AS SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS ERROR.
POINT IV
THE ORDINANCE IS ARBITRARILY ENFORCED AND
THUS CONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.
POINT V
MUNICIPAL ESTOPPEL BARS BRIDGEWATER.
POINT VI
SEARCH VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
POINT VII
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS DENIED DUE PROCESS.
We review the final judgment of the Law Division under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. That is, the Law Division's judgment must be supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. State v. Segars, 172 N.J. 481, 488 (2002). We are required to defer to the trial court's factual findings. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999). Indeed, we must uphold the court's factual findings as long as they are supported by sufficient competent evidence in the record. State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 166 (2015). However, an appellate court does not afford any special deference to the legal determinations of the trial court. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016).
After reviewing the record before us, and mindful of these standards of review, we reject defendant's arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mawla in his well-reasoned, comprehensive memorandum of opinion dated March 21, 2014.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION