STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DENARD C. TRAPP (15-042, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2280-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DENARD C. TRAPP,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted February 9, 2017 – Decided May 9, 2017
Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Municipal
Appeal No. 15-042.
Denard C. Trapp, appellant pro se.
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monica do
Outeiro, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, appeals from the Law Division's October 16, 2015
judgment of conviction and a January 15, 2016 denial of a motion
for reconsideration, following a trial de novo for resisting
arrest. We affirm.
On May 8, 2014, defendant exited Judge Kathleen Sheedy's
courtroom in the Monmouth County Courthouse after a hearing. Judge
Sheedy asked Monmouth County Sherriff's Officer Richard Coppinger
to "hold" defendant for a possible contempt of court charge after
it was brought to her attention defendant had audio-recorded the
hearing. Officer Coppinger exited the courtroom and told defendant
Judge Sheedy was investigating a claim he recorded the proceeding
and asked defendant not to leave. Defendant was advised he was
not under arrest at that time. Coppinger noticed defendant was
"significantly excited" and seemed "aggravated" so he called for
additional officers. It was at this time Coppinger was advised
Judge Sheedy ordered defendant arrested. Coppinger subsequently
advised defendant he was under arrest.
According to Coppinger, defendant resisted arrest and "backed
himself into a corner, raised his hands knuckle to knuckle, about
six inches from his chin" and did not let Coppinger place handcuffs
on him. Additional officers arrived and a "tussle" ensued on the
floor with defendant and several officers. Officers ultimately
arrested defendant. Parts of this encounter were captured on
security cameras and the video was submitted as evidence.
Defendant was charged with disorderly persons resisting
arrest in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(1). On March 31, 2015,
defendant was convicted in municipal court after the municipal
2 A-2280-15T3
court judge heard testimony from Coppinger, two Sheriff's officers
who assisted during the arrest, and defendant himself. The
municipal court credited the testimony of the officers, found
defendant guilty of the charge, and sentenced him to a thirty-day
jail term suspended, conditioned upon compliance with a one-year
term of probation, plus fines and costs.
Before the municipal court judge, defendant moved for a stay
pending appeal, which was denied. Defendant then filed a "Motion
to Vacate or Dismiss All Charges of March 31, 2015," which was
treated as an appeal de novo to the Law Division. Defendant's
appeal was heard on October 16, 2015, by Judge Ronald Reisner.
Judge Reisner considered arguments from defendant and the State
and reviewed the evidence. The judge rejected defendant's attempts
to supplement the record with documents not admitted into evidence
during the municipal court hearing, quashed defendant's subpoena
of the municipal prosecutor, and found defendant guilty of
resisting arrest. The judge sentenced defendant to a $200 fine
and court costs. Defendant moved for reconsideration, which the
judge denied on January 15, 2016. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant questions the applicability of the de
novo standard of review applied by the Law Division judge, arguing
he was never lawfully subject to arrest. Defendant also argues
he was denied discovery in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373
3 A-2280-15T3
U.S. 83, 82 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215. Because we conclude
the judge applied the proper standard of review and properly found
no Brady violation occurred because the underlying basis for
defendant's arrest was not relevant, we affirm.
When reviewing a trial court's de novo decision of a municipal
conviction, we must determine whether there is sufficient,
credible evidence present in the record to uphold the findings of
the trial court. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). Just
as the trial court is not as well situated as the municipal court
to determine credibility, neither is the Appellate Division, and
thus we do not make new credibility findings. State v. Locurto,
157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999) (citing Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at
161-62). Indeed, we do not "weigh the evidence, assess the
credibility of the witnesses, or make conclusions about the
evidence." State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997). Moreover,
"[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal
consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to
any special deference." State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 252 (2007)
(quoting Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366,
378 (1995).
With these standards standard in mind, we reject defendant's
arguments and affirm his conviction for the reasons expressed by
Judge Reisner. We add the following comment.
4 A-2280-15T3
A person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense "if he
purposely prevents or attempts to prevent a law enforcement officer
from effecting an arrest." N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(1). "It is not a
defense to a prosecution [for resisting arrest] that the law
enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest,
provided he was acting under color of his official authority and
provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to
arrest prior to resistance." N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a); State v. Brown,
205 N.J. 133, 147 n.7 (2011). Regardless of Judge Sheedy's
contempt determination, the record establishes defendant refused
to submit to the officer's direction when advised he was under
arrest.
Defendant's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
5 A-2280-15T3