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. Dolan

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


December 13, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSEPH M. DOLAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Municipal Appeal No. 45-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted December 4, 2007

Before Judges Skillman and Winkelstein.

Defendant was found guilty in the Union City Municipal Court of driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The court sentenced defendant to a three-month suspension of his driver's license, twelve hours in an Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center, a $300 fine and the statutorily mandated fees and assessments. On a de novo appeal, the Law Division also found defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and reimposed the same sentence imposed by the municipal court.

On appeal to this court, defendant presents the following arguments:

I. THE LAW DIVISION INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE BREATHALYZER RESULTS WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT, AND, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE RESULTS, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT; MOREOVER, THIS COURT CANNOT DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THE RESULTS OF THIS ERROR ON THE VERDICT.

II. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MUNICIPAL COURT OR THE LAW DIVISION CONSIDERED IMPROPER EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT POSSESSED A KNIFE AT THE TIME OF THE STOP.

III. THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOWER COURT AND THE LAW DIVISION GAVE IMPROPER WEIGHT TO DEFENDANT'S WORDS REGARDING WHAT HE HAD TO DRINK THAT EVENING.

We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment of conviction substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Schultz's March 14, 2007 oral opinion. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We only note that there is no basis in Judge Schultz's oral opinion for defendant's claims that the judge considered the results of the breathalyzer tests, which the municipal court had ruled were inadmissible, and defendant's possession of a knife, in finding that defendant operated his car while under the influence of alcohol.

Affirmed.

20071213

© 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.