Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4038-24 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VIRAJ PATEL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted October 15, 2026 – Decided October 28, 2026. Before Judges Mayer and Zazzali-Hogan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Municipal Appeal No. 3-25. Viraj Patel, self-represented appellant. Renée M. Robeson, Hunterdon County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joseph Paravecchia, First Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Viraj Patel appeals from a July 24, 2025 Law Division order dismissing his municipal court appeal. We affirm. Defendant received municipal court summonses for the following motor vehicle violations: reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96; speeding, N.J.S.A. 39:4- 99; traffic on marked lanes, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(a); and improper passing, N.J.S.A. 39:4-86. Defendant represented himself at the municipal court trial held on March 11, 2025. There, the State presented the testimony of a fifteen-year veteran officer with the New Jersey State Troopers. The testifying trooper issued the motor vehicle summonses to defendant. Additionally, the State submitted portions of the trooper's body-worn camera and dashcam footage in support of the charged motor vehicle violations. Defendant testified briefly. He denied driving 100 miles per hour as stated by the trooper. Based on the testimony and evidence, the municipal court judge convicted defendant on all but one charge. 1 In convicting defendant on four of the five motor vehicle charges, the municipal court judge relied on the trooper's credible testimony rather than the video footage. 1 Defendant was found not guilty of committing an unsafe lane change. A-4038-24 2 Defendant appealed his municipal court convictions to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. He continued to represent himself in the Law Division action. The Law Division judge conducted a video status conference and issued a May 13, 2025 scheduling order. The scheduling order established a due date for the submission of briefs and a date for argument on defendant's appeal.2 During the video status conference, the Law Division judge, with the assistance of a Gujarati interpreter, explained the mandatory dates in the scheduling order. Consistent with the scheduling order, the parties submitted briefs to the Law Division judge. The State and a court-ordered Gujarati interpreter appeared before the Law Division judge for argument on July 9, 2025. However, defendant failed to appear despite receiving written and oral notice of the argument date. The Law Division judge attempted to contact defendant on July 9, without success. Based on defendant's non-appearance at the July 9 argument, the State agreed the Law Division judge should "conduct a trial de novo in chambers off the record without any additional amplification through oral argument." The 2 The Law Division judge scheduled oral argument on defendant's municipal appeal for 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2025. A-4038-24 3 Law Division judge agreed and stated he would review the parties' written submissions and conduct "the hearing de novo in chambers based upon the papers" and the transcript of the municipal court trial. On July 24, 2025, the Law Division judge issued an order denying defendant's municipal court appeal with an accompanying written memorandum. The Law Division judge found defendant failed to provide specific facts in support of his arguments. Because defendant failed to present "any evidence or indicia that would indicate that the State's witness was unreliable, should not be believed, or was not credible,"3 the Law Division judge found defendant guilty of the same charges as the municipal court judge. He concluded defendant failed to "convincingly argue that his guilt of the offenses did not meet the requisite legal standard or that the record should be supplemented for the purpose of correcting a legal error." The Law Division judge found "sufficient credible evidence . . . to support [defendant's] convictions beyond a reasonable doubt" and affirmed the convictions and sentence imposed by the municipal court judge. 3 In fact, the Law Division judge noted defendant argued to the contrary. Defendant's brief stated the testimony proffered by the State's witness "was marked by unequivocal clarity," which "contribute[d] to an accurate record" and "bolster[ed] the credibility of the evidence presented." A-4038-24 4 On appeal, defendant raises the following argument:4 AS I'M [A] PRO SE L[I]TIG[A]NT[,] I DON'T KNOW ABOUT STATUTES (LAWS) AND REGULATION[S] (AGENCY RULES) AS THIS IS NOT MY PROFESSION JUST LIKE [THE STATE'S] WITNESS ISSUED ME THOSE TICKETS[.] I CAN ONLY GIVE YOU THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU MADE AN ERROR IN THOSE MATTERS WITHOUT ANY EXPLAINATIONS! Defendant argues denial of his right to due process based on the Law Division judge proceeding with the municipal appeal in defendant's absence. Additionally, defendant contends the May 13, 2025 scheduling order failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing to allow his effective participation. We reject these arguments. On appeal from a municipal court conviction, the Law Division judge reviews the matter de novo on the record. R. 3:23-8(a)(2). The Law Division judge must make independent "findings of fact and conclusions of law but defers to the municipal court's credibility findings." State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 147 (2017). Our review of a de novo conviction in the Law Division following a municipal court appeal is "exceedingly narrow." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 4 We recite defendant's legal argument verbatim except to correct grammatical errors. A-4038-24 5 470 (1999). The "standard of review of a de novo verdict after a municipal court trial is to 'determine whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence presented in the record,' considering the proofs as a whole." State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). Appellate review of a trial court's legal determination is plenary. See State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 383 (2015). We are satisfied the Law Division judge did not deny defendant his right to due process by disposing of the appeal on the papers without the need for oral argument or defendant's presence in court. Defendant admitted in his merits brief that he received the May 13, 2025 scheduling order. Further, defendant complied with the provisions in that scheduling order by timely filing his brief with the Law Division judge. However, defendant argues the scheduling order failed to provide the address or telephone number for the Law Division judge and that omission led to a deprivation of his constitutional rights. When defendant failed to appear for argument before the Law Division judge on July 9, 2025, the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, stated he would conduct the de novo hearing based on the written submissions filed by the parties without oral argument. See State v. Jang, 478 N.J. Super. 252, 260 (App. Div. A-4038-24 6 2024) (citing R. 3:23-4(b)) (vesting the Law Division judge with significant discretion in handling a municipal appeal). Further, the judge explained he would review the transcript of the municipal court proceeding before deciding defendant's municipal appeal. Because defendant failed to proffer any evidence supporting his claimed legal errors by the Law Division judge, we discern no reason to disturb the Law Division judge's findings of fact or conclusions of law. In reviewing the record as a whole, we are satisfied there was sufficient evidence supporting defendant's convictions. To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed. A-4038-24 7