State must prove offense took place in town State v Sylvia

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

February 21, 2012

Submitted January 17, 2012 - Decided

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2598-10T1

Before Judges Grall and Skillman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County,

Municipal Appeal No. A-18-10.

Levow & Associates, P.A., attorneys for

appellant (Evan M. Levow, of counsel and

on the brief; Sandra Battista, on the

brief).

Sean F. Dalton, Gloucester County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Joseph H. Enos, Jr., Assistant

Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following trial de novo on the record of the East Greenwich Township Municipal Court, the Law Division judge found defendant Edward F. Sylvia, Jr. guilty of driving while under the influence. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The judge sentenced defendant to two days in jail to be served at the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, imposed a $500 fine, a $50 VCCB penalty, a $75 SNSF assessment, a $200 DWI surcharge and $33 for court costs, suspended his license for two years, and required installation of an ignition interlock device for one year.

Defendant does not contest the lawfulness of the traffic stop or dispute probable cause warranting submission to the Alcotest that resulted in a .18 reading. Nor does he challenge the sanctions imposed. He presents these issues:

I. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT

SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S BREATH RESULTS AS SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS EXISTED SURROUNDING THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE ALCOTEST MACHINE.

II. APPELLANT WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO

TEST THE RELIABILITY OF THE BREATH RESULTS DUE TO INCOMPLETE DATA SUPPLIED, THUS DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS.

III. THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT

BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.

After considering the record, including the testimony of defendant's expert witness, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Marshall in his written opinion of December 7, 2010 and his oral opinion of December 3, 2010.

Affirmed.