State of New Jersey v. Frank Bright ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2137-22
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FRANK BRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Argued March 19, 2024 – Decided April 12, 2024
Before Judges Mayer, Paganelli and Whipple.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Municipal Appeal No.
19-2022.
Frank Bright, appellant pro se.
Charly Gayden, Assistant City Attorney, argued the
cause for respondent (Office of the City Attorney,
attorneys; Charly Gayden, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Frank Bright appeals from a March 15, 2023 order, after the
Law Division judge conducted a de novo review, affirming a September 27,
2022 order issued by the New Brunswick municipal court judge. The September
27 order found defendant guilty of contempt of court and imposed a $100 fine
under Rule 1:10-1. Defendant also appeals from the Law Division judge's denial
of interlocutory review of the municipal court judge's November 15, 2022
discovery order. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts based on the September 27, 2022
transcript of the municipal court proceeding, the March 3, 2023 transcript of the
Law Division hearing, and the Law Division judge's March 15, 2023 written
decision.
Defendant appeared in New Brunswick municipal court as a result of
citations and summons issued by the City of New Brunswick (City). The
citations alleged defendant violated the City's property maintenance code.
Prior to the start of the trial, defendant and the municipal court judge
engaged in a back-and-forth colloquy on the record. Because defendant
interrupted the September 27, 2022 municipal court proceeding and made
disrespectful comments during that proceeding, the municipal court judge found
defendant in contempt of court and imposed a $100 fine.
A-2137-22
2
Defendant appealed the municipal court judge's contempt finding and fine
to the Law Division. Judge Robert J. Jones, Jr. conducted a de novo hearing on
March 3, 2023. After considering the municipal judge's decision anew, Judge
Jones issued a well-written decision, finding defendant guilty of contempt of
court and imposing a $100 sanction. Judge Jones also denied defendant's
application for interlocutory review of the municipal court judge's November
15, 2022 discovery order. 1 In his March 15, 2023 order, Judge Jones stayed
payment of the $100 sanction pending appeal to this court.
We recite defendant's arguments on appeal verbatim:
POINT I
STATE HAS PERJURED THEMSELVES ON
CRITICAL FACTS OF THE CASE ON MULTIPLE
OCCASIONS DEMONSTRABLY TO CONFUSE
THE COURT AND OBTAIN AN UNLAWFUL
CONVICTION.
POINT II
STATE V. VASKY IS OVERLY BROAD: A JUDGE
WHO ACTIVELY ENGAGES IN UNLAWFUL ACTS
ON THE BENCH DOES NOT HAVE THE
PROTECTION OF CONTEMPT DUE TO JUDGE'S
LACK OF SELF-DIGNITY. ALL INDICATIONS
ARE THAT JUDGE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE
OF A DRUG.
1
Judge Jones declined to address the municipal court judge's discovery order ,
stating the issue was preserved pending the outcome of the municipal court trial.
A-2137-22
3
POINT III
SUPERIOR COURT HAD EXPARTE
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH UNFAIRLY
AFFECTED [DEFENDANT] UNDER DUE PROCESS
AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
(Not raised below).
POINT IV
SUPERIOR COURT CONSISTENTLY VIOLATED
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE LAW.
POINT V
APPELLATE COURT IS ASKED TO RULE
INTERLOCUTORY: BOTH TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE AND ON "OBSTINACY" RULING AS
BEHAVIOR IS PREMEDITATED TO HARASS PRO
SE [DEFENDANT].
POINT VI
APPELLATE COURT IS ASKED TO RULE
INTERLOCUTORY: BOTH TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE AND ON "OBSTINACY" RULING ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.
POINT VII
CASE LAW STATES FIRMLY THAT CONTEMPT
OF COURT IS NOT TO BE USED WHEN
[DEFENDANT] IS MERELY TRYING TO FOLLOW
THE RULES OF COURT AND ASKING THE
ALLEGED JUDGE'S NAME.
A-2137-22
4
POINT VIII
STATE COUNSEL IS CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK
PROSECUTOR: LAWYER FOR THE JUDGE
CANNOT BE PROSECUTOR UNDER CONFLICT
OF INTEREST.
POINT IX
THE RIGHT TO FACE MY ACCUSERS IS BEING
VIOLATED PER DUE PROCESS.
We affirm for the reason expressed by Judge Jones in his March 15, 2023
written decision. We add the following brief comments.
Our "review of a municipal appeal to the Law Division is limited to the
action of the Law Division and not that of the municipal court." State v. Hannah,
448 N.J. Super. 78, 94 (App. Div. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting State v. Palma, 219 N.J. 584, 591-92 (2014)). We review a trial court's
de novo decision on a municipal appeal to "determine whether sufficient
credible evidence in the record supports the Law Division's decision." State v.
Monaco, 444 N.J. Super. 539, 549 (App. Div. 2016) (citing State v. Johnson, 42
N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). We "do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of
witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence." State v. Barone, 147 N.J.
599, 615 (1997). "However, where issues on appeal turn on purely legal
A-2137-22
5
determinations, our review is plenary." Monaco, 444 N.J. Super. at 549 (citing
State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011)).
Rule 1:10-1, addressing summary contempt in the presence of the court,
states:
A judge conducting a judicial proceeding may
adjudicate contempt summarily without an order to
show cause if:
(a) the conduct has obstructed, or if
continued would obstruct, the proceeding;
(b) the conduct occurred in the actual
presence of the judge, and was actually
seen or heard by the judge;
(c) the character of the conduct or its
continuation after an appropriate warning
unmistakably demonstrates its willfulness;
(d) immediate adjudication is necessary to
permit the proceeding to continue in an
orderly and proper manner; and
(e) the judge has afforded the alleged
contemnor an immediate opportunity to
respond.
The order of contempt shall recite the facts and contain
a certification by the judge that he or she saw or heard
the conduct constituting the contempt and that the
contemnor was willfully contumacious. Punishment
may be determined forthwith or deferred. Execution of
sentence shall be stayed for five days following
imposition and, if an appeal is taken, during the
A-2137-22
6
pendency of the appeal, provided, however, that the
judge may require bail if reasonably necessary to assure
the contemnor's appearance.
Judge Jones meticulously addressed the facts in reviewing the municipal
judge's contempt finding against defendant. Additionally, the municipal court
judge provided a detailed certification, describing defendant's conduct, despite
being given several warnings, as willfully contumacious warranting contempt of
court under Rule 1:10-1. Although the municipal court judge did not
specifically ask if defendant wished to respond to the contempt charge, the
record demonstrates defendant had the opportunity to respond to the charge and,
in fact, did so during the September 27, 2022 municipal court proceeding. Thus,
we are satisfied the contempt finding was based on sufficient credible evidence
in the record.
Regarding the $100 fine imposed by Judge Jones, he could not impose a
penalty greater than the penalty assessed by the municipal court judge. State v.
Kashi, 180 N.J. 45, 49 (2004). Given this limitation, Judge Jones concluded
"[t]he fine was minimal given what took place" in municipal court. We are
satisfied the sanction imposed by Judge Jones was supported by sufficient
credible evidence in the record.
A-2137-22
7
Because we affirm the Law Division's contempt of court decision and
$100 sanction, we dissolve the portion of the March 15, 2023 order staying
payment of the fine imposed.
Defendant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-2137-22
8