Preview:

a3181-08.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 39:3-40; failure to observe a traffic signal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81; and improper right turn, N.J.S.A.
39:4-123. The judge sentenced defendant as a third-time offender under N.J.S.A. 39:3-40c and imposed a
ten-day jail term and the appropriate fines, and suspended defendant's driver's license for sixty days. On
appeal, defendant argues that (1) the State failed to prove he had notice of the suspension of his driver's
license; (2) in finding him guilty of the motor vehicle offenses the judge improperly relied on testimony the
jury rejected; and (3) the judge improperly sentenced him as a third offender without making findings of
fact. We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(2). However, we make the following brief comments. "> Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3181-08T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ERNEST MANNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
December 28, 2010
Submitted December 15, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Fisher and Simonelli.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3181-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:52:16 PM]




a3181-08.opn.html
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,
Indictment No. 08-05-1673.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Thomas G. Hand,
Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent
(Jennifer Fetterman, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Ernest Manning was charged with eluding and resisting arrest stemming from a motor vehicle
chase with the Township of Irvington police on September 7, 2007. Defendant was also charged with
several motor vehicle offenses. At the conclusion of trial, a jury acquitted defendant of eluding and resisting
arrest. The trial judge convicted him of driving while his license was suspended, N.J.S.A. 39:3-40; failure to
observe a traffic signal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81; and improper right turn, N.J.S.A. 39:4-123. The judge sentenced
defendant as a third-time offender under N.J.S.A. 39:3-40c and imposed a ten-day jail term and the
appropriate fines, and suspended defendant's driver's license for sixty days.
On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the State failed to prove he had notice of the suspension of his
driver's license; (2) in finding him guilty of the motor vehicle offenses the judge improperly relied on
testimony the jury rejected; and (3) the judge improperly sentenced him as a third offender without making
findings of fact. We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(2). However, we make the following brief comments.
A person whose driver's license has been suspended must challenge
any deficiencies in the suspension of [his] driver's license by appealing from that
decision, rather than attacking it collaterally as a defense to a charge of violating
N.J.S.A. 39:3-40. An order of suspension by the Director is a decision by a state
administrative agency which may only be challenged directly in the Appellate
Division after all administrative remedies have been exhausted.
[State v. Ferrier, 294 N.J. Super. 198, 200 (App. Div. 1996) (emphasis added).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3181-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:52:16 PM]




a3181-08.opn.html
Defendant did not administratively appeal the suspension of his driver's license, and thus his claim he
received no notice of the suspension is not properly before us.
The indictable charges are separate and distinct from the motor vehicle charges, which were properly not
litigated before the jury. The trial judge was entitled to rely on his own view of the evidence in analyzing
the motor vehicle offenses; he was not bound by the jury's fact findings on the indictable offenses. State v.
Muniz, 118 N.J. 319, 331-32 (1990).
According to defendant's fourteen page certified driver abstract, on which the judge relied, defendant's
license was suspended four times in the five-year period prior to the present driving while suspended
charge. Accordingly, the judge properly sentenced defendant as a third offender.
Affirmed.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3181-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:52:16 PM]

Download a3181-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law