STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALFRED PETROSSIAN (6066, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1257-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALFRED PETROSSIAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________
Submitted May 2, 2017 – Decided May 9, 2017
Before Judges Yannotti and Fasciale.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Passaic County, Municipal Appeal
No. 6066.
Alfred Petrossian, appellant pro se.
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Tom Dominic Osadnik,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Pro se defendant appeals from a November 4, 2015 de novo
conviction entered after the Law Division amended the complaint
to reflect defendant had violated William Paterson University
parking regulations, N.J.S.A. 18A:64-6(c) and (m). We affirm.
Defendant improperly parked his motorcycle on campus in a
non-designated parking area. He initially received a ticket for
violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-135. Defendant refused to pay the fine
associated with that violation and the matter proceeded to a trial
in municipal court.
At the trial, defendant testified that the University had
long recognized the area where he had parked as a spot reserved
for motorcycles. The municipal court judge believed the testifying
officer, disbelieved defendant, and found him guilty of violating
N.J.S.A. 39:4-135. The municipal court judge imposed a fine of
twenty-three dollars and court costs of twenty-one dollars.
Defendant appealed to the Law Division.
The Law Division judge conducted a trial de novo and found
there were insufficient facts to convict defendant of N.J.S.A.
39:4-135. The judge amended the complaint, and found defendant
guilty of N.J.S.A. 18A:64-6(c) and (m). The judge found defendant
violated the regulations by parking his motorcycle in the area
with a dashed yellow line. The judge imposed the same fine given
by the municipal judge of twenty-three dollars and court costs of
twenty-one dollars.
On appeal, defendant argues the following points:
POINT I. THE RULING BELOW UNDERMINED DUE
PROCESS AND OVERLOOKED THE [SIX]TH AMENDMENT,
BECAUSE IN FINDING THE [DEFENDANT] GUILTY THE
2 A-1257-15T2
COURT AMENDED HIS STATUTORY VIOLATION WHILE
RENDERING THE GUILTY VERDICT AGAINST HIM, WHEN
THE MERITS OF HIS GUILT AT TRIAL WAS
ADJUDICATED FOR A DIFFERENT VIOLATION.
POINT II. THE RULING BELOW UNDERMINED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THE COURT
ARBITRARILY OVERLOOKED KEY EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT FALSE TESTIMONY GIVEN AGAINST THE
[DEFENDANT] AT HIS TRIAL CONTRIBUTED TO THE
FINDING OF GUILTY AGAINST HIM.
POINT III. THE RULING BELOW INVOLVED JUDICIAL
BIAS, BECAUSE THE JUDGE SHOWED INTEREST, IN
REACHING A JUDICIAL OUTCOME AGAINST THE
[DEFENDANT], IN DISREGARD OF MATERIAL EXISTING
FACTS AND LAWS.
When a defendant appeals a decision made by a municipal court
to the Law Division, the court is required to conduct a de novo
review of the record, giving "due regard to the municipal judge's
opportunity to view the witnesses and assess credibility." State
v. Golin, 363 N.J. Super. 474, 481 (App. Div. 2003) (citing State
v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964)). On appeal from the Law
Division's decision, we must determine whether the Law Division
judge's findings "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient
credible evidence in the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463,
471 (1999) (quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 162). Applying
this standard, we see no error.
We begin by addressing whether the judge had authority to
amend the charge. Under the facts of this case, we agree with the
State and conclude that the judge properly amended the charge from
3 A-1257-15T2
N.J.S.A. 39:4-135 to N.J.S.A. 18A:64-6(c) and (m). The judge
amended the charge pursuant to Rule 3:23-8(c), which states in
pertinent part that the judge may
during or before the hearing of the appeal,
amend the complaint by making the charge more
specific, definite or certain, or in any other
manner, including the substitution of any
charge growing out of the act or acts
complained of or the surrounding circumstances
of which the court from whose judgment or
sentence the appeal is taken.
[(Emphasis added).]
The original complaint charged defendant with violating
N.J.S.A. 39:4-135, which states:
The operator of a vehicle shall not stop,
stand or park the vehicle in a roadway other
than parallel with the edge of the roadway
headed in the direction of traffic, on the
right-hand side of the road and with the curb
side of the vehicle within six inches of the
edge of the roadway, except as follows:
a. Upon those streets which have been
designated by ordinance and have been marked
or signed for angle parking, vehicles shall
be parked at the angle to the curb designated
and indicated by the ordinance and marks or
signs.
b. Upon one-way streets, local authorities
may permit parking of vehicles parallel with
the left-hand edge of the roadway headed in
the direction of traffic, on the left-hand
side of the road and with the curb side of the
vehicle within six inches of the edge of the
roadway.
4 A-1257-15T2
The Law Division judge found N.J.S.A. 39:4-135 inapplicable
and amended the complaint to reflect violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:64-
6(c) and (m), which state:
The board of trustees of a State college shall
have general supervision over and shall be
vested with the conduct of the college. It
shall have the power and duty to:
. . . .
c. Determine policies for the organization,
administration and development of the college;
. . . .
m. Adopt, after consultation with the
president and faculty, bylaws and make and
promulgate such rules, regulations and orders,
not inconsistent with the provisions of this
article, that are necessary and proper for the
administration and operation of the college
and the carrying out of its purposes[.]
Both statutes involve violations of parking regulations, and
defendant was clearly on notice of the charge he faced. Contrary
to defendant's contention, we see no due process violation. The
conviction is less serious than N.J.S.A. 39:4-135, and there is
no prejudice by amending the ticket. The amendment simply made
more specific, definite, and certain the charge pertaining to the
parking violation at issue.
We reject defendant's assertion that the judge erred by
denying his motion to supplement the record with a photograph.
The photograph was not in the record of the municipal court
5 A-1257-15T2
proceedings, and it was taken "after the fact." Therefore, it was
not properly before the court on its de novo review. And as the
Law Division judge found, the State did not have the opportunity
to dispute the evidential weight of the photograph.
Finally, the University's parking regulations require that
all vehicles park entirely within marked parking spaces in the
University's lots. There exists sufficient evidence demonstrating
that defendant parked his motorcycle in a non-designated parking
area. Although defendant claims the officer testified falsely,
the court found the officer's testimony to be credible. And the
State introduced into evidence a photograph which further
supported the testimony by the officer.
After considering the record and the briefs, we conclude that
defendant's remaining arguments are "without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
6 A-1257-15T2