Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0970-14T1
10-26-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ABDULLAHI H. HALLIRU, a/k/a ABDULLPHI HALLIRU, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kimmo Z.H. Abbasi, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 13-04-0331. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kimmo Z.H. Abbasi, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by ROTHSTADT, J.A.D.
Defendant Abdullahi H. Halliru appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury convicted him of fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle while his license had been suspended for at least a second time, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). After his conviction, the court sentenced defendant to one year probation and, as a condition, required him to serve one hundred eighty days in the county jail.
Defendant was charged with committing the offense and hindering apprehension or prosecution as a disorderly persons offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(a), when he was stopped by police several hours after he left a municipal court where he had pled guilty to refusing to submit to an Alcotest, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, and was sentenced to a ten-year license suspension, as it was his third driving while intoxicated related offense. Defendant, who held a New York State driver's license, believed that when he left municipal court that day, the court issued him a temporary driver's license that permitted him to continue operating his vehicle. The court, however, did not issue him a temporary license because it was prevented from doing so as defendant held an out-of-state license.
On appeal, defendant argues only that:
THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND RESULTED IN A MANIFEST DENIAL OF JUSTICE TO HALLIRU.
We find defendant's argument to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Suffice it to say, defendant never filed a motion for new trial with the trial court, R. 3:20-1, which is a condition precedent to arguing the sufficiency of the evidence at trial in an appeal. R. 2:10-1. While we need not entertain a weight of the evidence argument in the absence of a new trial motion, we may nevertheless choose to do so in the interest of justice. State v. Smith, 262 N.J. Super. 487, 511 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476 (1993). "We note that the application of [Rule] 2:10-1 to bar a criminal defendant from arguing that a guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence may implicate constitutional rights which are not at stake in a civil appeal," Fiore v. Riverview Med. Ctr., 311 N.J. Super. 361, 363 n.1 (App. Div. 1998), but we do not discern any issue argued by defendant that warrants our review in this case.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION