620 A.2d 449 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1993), State v. Casalino

Citation:620 A.2d 449, 262 N.J.Super. 166
Opinion Judge:[11] Stern
Party Name:STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Carlo CASALINO, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:[7] Joseph R. Mariniello, attorney for appellant (Mr. Mariniello on the brief).
Case Date:February 16, 1993
Court:Superior Court of New Jersey

Page 449

620 A.2d 449 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1993)

262 N.J.Super. 166

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,


Carlo CASALINO, Defendant-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

February 16, 1993

Submitted Jan. 6, 1993.

Page 450

[262 N.J.Super. 167] Joseph R. Mariniello, Fort Lee, for defendant-appellant (Mr. Mariniello on the brief).

James W. Holzapfel, Ocean County Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Regina Gelzer, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the letter brief).

Robert J. Del Tufo, Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae Div. of Motor Vehicles (Mary C. Jacobson, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel; Valerie L. Egar, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).


The opinion of the court was delivered by


Defendant was convicted in the Dover Township Municipal Court of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, for failing to observe a traffic signal. A fine of $50 and $20 in costs were imposed. There was no contest as to guilt on the municipal appeal, and the same monetary sanctions were imposed on trial de novo. In addition, the judge of the Law Division, like the municipal court judge, ordered that defendant be "retested by D.M.V." However, defendant's license was not suspended, and there is no indication that the test was to be conducted before defendant would be permitted to drive again. The decision was apparently based on defendant's age. He was 81 at the time of the hearings.

The sole contention raised before us is that "the court was without jurisdiction and/or authority to order defendant to be reexamined for driver's license." Defendant argues that there is no express statutory jurisdiction to order the reexamination, [262 N.J.Super. 168] which the Law Division judge acknowledged on trial de novo, and which the prosecutor does not now dispute. Defendant points to the legislative scheme which permits testing and examination only as ordered by the Division of Motor Vehicles, see N.J.S.A. 39:3-10; see also N.J.S.A. 39:3-11 (permitting the Director to impose conditions on licensure in light of an individual's physical condition).

The prosecutor responds only by stating that "appellate review of this matter is limited," and we must affirm a conviction where there is "sufficient credible evidence present in the record." While the prosecutor points to no evidence in support of that argument, we note...

To continue reading