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. Ayad

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


July 6, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SAFWAT B. AYAD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, 11-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted June 16, 2009

Before Judges Axelrad and Winkelstein.

On March 25, 2008, the Bayonne Municipal Court convicted defendant of three traffic violations: two counts of failure to observe a traffic signal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, and one count of failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2f. The court ordered defendant to pay $232 in fines.

After a Superior Court judge denied defendant's request for an "indigent transcript," on April 11, 2008, the Law Division dismissed his appeal for his failure to order a transcript. See R. 3:23-3. Consequently, the Law Division was unable to conduct a de novo trial as to defendant's convictions.

By order of October 6, 2008, this court denied defendant's application to proceed as an indigent and for free transcripts. The order permitted him to proceed with an appeal addressed only to the dismissal of his municipal appeal. Alternatively, the order permitted him to order municipal court transcripts and seek reconsideration of the dismissal in the Law Division. Defendant failed to take either course of action.

On appeal to this court, appellant raises the following argument:

A POLICE OFFICER, A CRIMINAL OPERATIVE FOR A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION RUNNING THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF OTHER CRIMINALS, FALSELY ACCUSED THE APPELLANT OF VIOLATING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS. THE [CRIMINAL] OPERATIVE SHOULD BE PUNISHED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW AND THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN SHOULD BE [EXONERATED].

Defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Because he failed to order transcripts, the Law Division was unable to conduct a de novo trial. Accordingly, we affirm the Law Division order dismissing defendant's appeal.

Affirmed.

20090706

© 1992-2009 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.