Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1877-14T1
02-22-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LYNN S. PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
Lynn S. Price argued the cause pro se. Brett A. Berman, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Angelo J. Onofri, Acting Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Berman, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Accurso and Suter. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Municipal Appeal No. 2013-15. Lynn S. Price argued the cause pro se. Brett A. Berman, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Angelo J. Onofri, Acting Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Berman, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Lynn S. Price was convicted in municipal court of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-98, by driving at ninety-two miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour zone along Route 1 in West Windsor and fined $200, along with $33 in court costs and a $6 surcharge. The Law Division affirmed the conviction based upon a de novo review of the record and imposed the same fine imposed by the municipal court. Defendant appeals, raising the following issues.
Point 1
Given the Facts of this Case, the denial of defendant's request for an Adjournment was a Structural Error that affected the legitimacy of the entire trial providing the grounds for an acquittal.
Point 2
The conviction should be reversed because the defendant suffered harmful error due to the accumulation of errors that occurred during the Pre-Trial Proceedings and During The Trial.
Serious Discovery Violations.
Illegal Evidence Was Admitted.
Impartial Judge.
The Prosecutor Violated Ethical Standards.
Point 3
Even if the West Windsor Municipal Court had not committed the above referenced violations, the evidence introduced at trial was legally insufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We reject those arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Jimenez's written opinion of October, 22, 2014. We are satisfied the judge was correct to find the municipal court judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's request for an adjournment on the trial date. Trial adjournments are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, which we ordinarily will not invade on appeal unless "manifestly necessary." State v. Gallegan, 117 N.J. 345, 354 (1989). We see no necessity of doing so here.
Defendant had six weeks' notice of the trial of this speeding ticket for which she claims she was unprepared. We are unpersuaded by the argument that compelling her to try the case on the trial date induced structural error as in State v. Kates, 216 N.J. 393 (2014). Kates dealt with the denial of an adjournment request to secure counsel, which was not the basis of the request here. As the Supreme Court made clear in that case, "only if a trial court summarily denies an adjournment to retain private counsel without considering the relevant factors, or abuses its discretion in the way it analyzes those factors, can a deprivation of the right to choice of counsel be found. Structural error is not triggered otherwise." Id. at 397.
Our review of the record likewise convinces us Judge Jimenez was correct to find the radar evidence was properly admitted. Although defendant objected to the admission of the documents offered to establish the reliability of the Stalker radar, the objection was based on her contention the State could not rely on radar to form the basis of a speeding violation, which is incorrect. See State v. Dantonio, 18 N.J. 570, 580 (1955). Thus we agree with the Law Division that defendant has waived any challenge to the reliability of the device used to establish the speed at which she was driving. See State v. Van Syoc, 235 N.J. Super. 463, 465 (Law Div. 1988), aff'd o.b., 235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989).
We are satisfied that the State proved all of the elements of the offense of speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Badessa, 185 N.J. 303, 312 (2005). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Jimenez in his written opinion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION