Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3759-14T3
10-17-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUAN M. LE, Defendant-Respondent. DANILO FIGUEROA, Appellant.
Bruce G. Cassidy & Associates, P.A., attorneys for appellant Danilo Figueroa (Bruce G. Cassidy, on the brief). Law Offices of Riley and Riley, attorneys for respondent Huan M. Le (Tracy L. Riley and Rachel M. Conte, on the brief). Diane Ruberton, Acting Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Mario C. Formica, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). Carl N. Tripician, attorney for respondent Atlantic City Municipal Prosecutor's Office.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Municipal Appeal Nos. S-13-6582 and S-13-6583. Bruce G. Cassidy & Associates, P.A., attorneys for appellant Danilo Figueroa (Bruce G. Cassidy, on the brief). Law Offices of Riley and Riley, attorneys for respondent Huan M. Le (Tracy L. Riley and Rachel M. Conte, on the brief). Diane Ruberton, Acting Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Mario C. Formica, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). Carl N. Tripician, attorney for respondent Atlantic City Municipal Prosecutor's Office. PER CURIAM
Danilo Figueroa appeals from a March 18, 2015 Law Division order rejecting his appeal from a decision of the municipal court, which dismissed Figueroa's citizen complaint against Huan M. Le for lack of probable cause. We affirm.
As in the Law Division, the parties disagree on whether Figueroa has standing to pursue this appeal. The record presented to us on that issue is less than satisfactory. It is unclear why the municipal judge permitted Figueroa's attorney to prosecute the matter at the probable cause hearing. However, regardless of the standing issue, it is clear to us that the Law Division's decision must be affirmed on the merits.
The events Figueroa's brief describes do not appear in the municipal court transcript. His appendix includes two undated certifications purporting to explain the procedural history of the matter; from their content, those materials clearly were not submitted to the Law Division and we therefore cannot consider them.
The facts are set forth at length in the Law Division judge's written opinion and need not be detailed here. In summary, on January 4, 2013, Figueroa's girlfriend called the police from outside Figueroa's apartment, and several officers, including Officer Huan Le, responded to the call. Almost a year later, on December 13, 2103, Figueroa filed a citizen complaint against Officer Le, alleging that Le assaulted him during the January 4 incident.
As a result of this incident, Officer Le issued two complaint-summonses against Figueroa on January 4, 2013, charging Figueroa with aggravated assault and resisting arrest. --------
A probable cause hearing was held in municipal court, at which Figueroa and the girlfriend testified. The municipal judge found that neither Figueroa nor the girlfriend was a credible witness and concluded that there was not probable cause to issue a criminal complaint against Le. Accordingly, the municipal judge dismissed the complaint. See R. 7:2-2(a)(1). After reviewing the record de novo, giving due weight to the municipal judge's credibility determinations, the Law Division judge reached the same conclusion as to witness credibility and found no probable cause.
Our review of the Law Division judge's decision is limited. We cannot disturb his factual findings as long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence, and we must defer to his evaluation of witness credibility. See State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37, 48-49 (2012) (citing State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)). We owe enhanced deference where the Law Division judge and the municipal judge, who heard the witnesses testify firsthand, both reach the same conclusions about witness credibility. Locurto, supra, 157 N.J. at 474. In this case, we find no basis to second-guess the Law Division judge's factual findings, and we affirm his determination that there was no probable cause to issue the criminal complaint.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION