Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Godman

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


May 16, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT GODMAN, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Municipal Appeal No. A-54-04.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 27, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Gilroy.

Following a trial de novo in the Law Division, defendant Robert Godman, Jr., was found guilty of tampering with public records, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7a(2). On appeal, defendant argues that: 1) the charge should have been dismissed under the de minimis statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-11; and 2) the State failed to prove that he violated N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7a(2).

On April 15, 2004, defendant was tried and found guilty of the charge in the municipal court of the City of Woodbury. On September 27, 2004, defendant was sentenced to a one-year probationary term and was fined $150. All mandatory fees and assessments were also imposed. Defendant appealed to the Law Division. On April 1, 2005, defendant was again found guilty, and the same sentence was imposed.

On appeal from a de novo trial on the record, we will only consider the action of the Law Division, not that of the municipal court. State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244, 251 (App. Div. 2001). The scope of our review is limited. Id. at 252. We "determine whether the findings [of the Law Division] could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record," considering the proofs as a whole. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). Accordingly, an individual appealing a decision from a trial de novo is required to arrange for the preparation and filing of the transcript of the proceedings in the Law Division. R. 2:5-3(a); R. 2:5-4(a). Because defendant has failed, notwithstanding several requests from the Appellate Clerk's office, to arrange for the preparation and filing of the transcript from the October 1, 2005, trial de novo, we are unable to perform our review of those proceedings. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

20070516

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.