STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARTHUR W. VESPIGNANI (18-01-0027, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2019 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3568-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ARTHUR W. VESPIGNANI,
a/k/a ARTHUR WILLIAM
VESPIGNANI, ARTHUR
WILLIAM VESPIGNANI, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Argued September 17, 2019 - Decided November 8, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Warren County, Accusation No. 18-01-
0027.
James H. Maynard, Designated Counsel, argued the
cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; James H. Maynard, on the briefs).
Dit Mosco, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for
respondent (Richard T. Burke, Warren County
Prosecutor, attorney; Kelly A. Shelton, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Arthur W. Vespignani pleaded guilty to third-degree
endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b), stemming from
his possession of child pornography, and fourth-degree violation of the
conditions of community supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d), and was
sentenced in accordance with a negotiated agreement to four years in State
prison on the former and a concurrent eighteen-months on the latter and to
parole supervision for life by consent. He appeals his sentence raising two
issues:
POINT I
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
REJECTING ALL BUT ONE MITIGATING
FACTOR PROPOSED BY THE DEFENDANT, AND
BY FINDING AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT
WERE UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS IN THE
RECORD [NOT RAISED BELOW].
POINT II
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE
[NOT RAISED BELOW].
A-3568-17T1
2
Having reviewed the record, we find the arguments without sufficient merit to
warrant any extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
We add only the following.
Defendant was sentenced to three years in State prison and community
supervision for life in 2003, after he drove to meet a fourteen-year-old girl for
sex whom he had been conversing with online, not knowing "the girl" was an
FBI agent. He was convicted of violating his community supervision in 2013,
three years before his arrest on these charges of having downloaded onto a
thumb drive images depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child.
At sentencing, defendant presented a psychological evaluation recently
performed by Dr. Witt, recommending against incarceration. In that
evaluation, Dr. Witt noted his findings were "mixed." "On the negative side,"
Dr. Witt found that "despite having experienced significant legal consequences
in 2003 and despite being supervised on [community supervision for life] ,
[defendant] has relapsed with regard to downloading child pornography,"
resulting in a rise in his risk assessment scores since his last evaluation in
2013. "On the positive side," Dr. Witt noted defendant's "therapist, a sex
offender treatment expert, indicates that for the first time, [defendant] is taking
psychotherapy seriously, showing more openness in treatment, and
A-3568-17T1
3
demonstrating a high degree of commitment and motivation," which Dr. Witt
found evident in his interview with defendant. Defendant's therapist provided
a letter attesting to his progress in therapy, asserting a prison term "would
destabilize him emotionally and disrupt his ability to support himself and his
family."
Judge Curry took both evaluations as well as the entirety of the pre-
sentence report, which noted defendant's prior years of therapy, into account in
finding aggravating factors three, six and nine, giving "light weight" to
mitigating factor eleven, and rejecting defendant's proffer of mitigating factors
one, two, four, seven, eight, nine and twelve. In his comprehensive statement
imposing sentence, Judge Curry stressed that possession of child pornography
is not a "victimless crime" and that defendant could not fail to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his conduct.
While pleased to note the progress defendant had made recently in
therapy, the judge noted defendant's prior record and that these offenses
occurred while defendant continued under community supervision for life,
underscoring the risk of further offense and the need to deter. In light of
defendant's history, the judge determined he could not find that recent therapy
A-3568-17T1
4
made it unlikely at this point that defendant would reoffend or would be
particularly likely to respond to probationary treatment.
Judge Curry obviously took considerable care in crafting the sentence
imposed in this case, weighing each of defendant's arguments. Our review of
the sentencing transcript convinces us that the judge's careful findings and
balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors are supported by adequate
evidence in the record, and the sentence imposed is neither inconsistent with
sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice nor shocking to the
judicial conscience. See State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70-71 (2014); State v.
Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 180-81
(2009). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed.
Affirmed.
A-3568-17T1
5