STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT J. YOUNG, JR. (8-18, ATLANTIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1320-18T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT J. YOUNG, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted June 5, 2019 – Decided July 3, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Municipal Appeal No. 8-18.
Helmer, Conley & Kasselman, PA, attorneys for
appellant (Patricia B. Quelch, of counsel and on the
brief).
Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Melinda A. Harrigan, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Robert J. Young. Jr., appeals from the Law Division's October
17, 2018 order entered after a de novo trial on the record. The Law Division
found defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in violation of
N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. After reviewing defendant's contentions in light of the record
and applicable principles of law, we affirm.
On July 7, 2017, defendant was charged with DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and
reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96. At approximately 7:45 a.m. that morning, a
woman stopped a Ventnor police officer in the parking lot of a convenience
store, and asked him to check on a man who appeared to be unconscious or
asleep in a parked minivan.
The officer knocked on the van's window several times before the man,
later identified as defendant, woke up. The officer noted defendant was in the
driver's seat, the key was in the ignition, and the engine was running. When
defendant awoke, the officer asked him to turn off the engine and take the key
out of the ignition. In responding to the officer's inquiry as to where he had
come from, defendant pointed in a westerly direction and said he was at a
friend's house. The officer observed that defendant smelled of alcohol, was
mumbling and hard to understand.
A-1320-18T3
2
After defendant failed field sobriety tests, he was arrested and charged
with DWI and reckless driving. An Alcotest, performed at the police station,
produced a blood alcohol content reading of 0.16 %.
Later that day, the officer reviewed the convenience store's surveillance
video, which showed defendant pulling into the parking lot at 5:50 a.m. No one
exited or entered the vehicle between the time it was parked and the time the
officer knocked on the window. The officer memorialized his observations in
his police report.
At the municipal court trial, defendant stipulated to the facts and his
intoxication, but disputed that he was "operating" the vehicle. Following the
trial, the municipal court judge determined defendant was operating the van and
found him guilty of DWI in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.1
Defendant appealed to the Law Division, where the court conducted a trial
de novo on the record. In a written opinion issued October 17, 2018, the Law
Division judge also found defendant guilty. He noted that the officer found
defendant in a convenience store parking lot, a business whose purpose is to
"grab and go." Defendant was sitting in the driver's seat, the key was in the
ignition, and the engine was running. Defendant did not contend he had
1
He was acquitted of the reckless driving charge.
A-1320-18T3
3
consumed alcohol elsewhere and then came to the parking lot to sleep it off, nor
did he claim he had not consumed alcohol until after parking in the lot. The
judge concluded there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to demonstrate
defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated.
In this appeal, defendant argues the State has failed to prove he was
operating his vehicle while intoxicated.
Our scope of review is limited to whether the conclusions of the Law
Division judge "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible
evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). We
do "not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility
determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional
showing of error." State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017) (quoting State
v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)).
We give substantial deference to a trial judge's findings of fact. Cesare v.
Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invr's
Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). These findings should only be disturbed
when there is no doubt that they are inconsistent with the relevant, credible
evidence presented below, such that a manifest denial of justice would result
from their preservation. Id. at 412. We owe no deference to the trial judge's
A-1320-18T3
4
legal conclusions. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140
N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
Defendant contends the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
operation element of the DWI statute. A person is deemed to have been driving
while intoxicated if that person "operates a motor vehicle while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing
drug." N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a). "Actual operation is not required." State v. Ebert,
377 N.J. Super. 1, 10 (App. Div. 2005). "'Operation' may be prove[n] by actual
observation of the defendant driving while intoxicated," by defendant's
admission, or through circumstantial evidence "indicating that the defendant had
been driving while intoxicated." Id. at 10-11 (citations omitted).
Here, the Law Division judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to
prove defendant operated the vehicle, although he ruled the portion of the
videotape filmed prior to the officer's arrival was inadmissible. Defendant was
found asleep in the van in the parking lot of a convenience store, with the key
in the ignition and the engine running. There was no evidence that he had
arrived at that location in any other manner but by driving himself; nor did
defendant claim otherwise. To the contrary, he informed the officer he had come
A-1320-18T3
5
from a friend's house. There also was no evidence that defendant consumed
alcohol after he parked his van in the lot.
We discern no basis to disturb the judge's decision. He thoroughly
reviewed the facts and we are satisfied the record contained sufficient credible
evidence to substantiate his finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
was operating the vehicle.
Affirmed.
A-1320-18T3
6