[brief] R. 3:23-8.  The function of the Law Division on review of a municipal court ruling is to determine the case completely anew on the record made in the municipal court.  *State v. Avena*, 281 NJ. Super. 327, 333 (App. Div. 1995).  A Law Division judge conducting a trial de novo does not search the record for error, nor does the reviewing judge affirm or reverse what occurred in the Municipal court.  Instead, the Superior Court judge determines the case completely anew by reviewing the record and making an independent determination of the sufficiency of the evidence presented, giving due although not necessarily controlling, regard to the Municipal Court judge’s credibility findings.  See *State v. Johnson*, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964).  The reviewing court should defer to the findings of the trial judge, which “are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record. ”  *State v. Locurto*, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999).  Likewise, the reviewing court must give deference to the findings of the trial judge, which are substantially influenced by his or her opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have a “feel” of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.  *State v. Cerefice*, 335 N.J. Super. 374, 383 (App. Div. 2000).  Matters of credibility that can be inferred from the record and are supported by the evidence presented need not be articulated by the municipal court on the record during its decisions.  *Locurto*, supra. 157 N.J. at 474.  Although due regard must be given to the credibility findings of the municipal court, a trial de novo by definition requires the Superior Court to make its own findings of fact.  *State vs. Ross*, 189 N.J. Super. 67, 75 (App. Div. 1983).  During a trial de novo, the reviewing Court does not act in an appellate function, rather, the reviewing court is an independent factfinder regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence.  *Id.*  As a result, the reviewing court may reach the same holding as the trial court based on the same or different reasoning.  *Johnson*, supra, 42 N.J. at 157.  If a defendant is found guilty after a de novo review, the Superior Court must impose a new sentence, which generally cannot be greater than the sentence imposed by the Municipal Court.  See State v. Ciancaglini, 204 N.J. 597, 604 (2011); see also State v. Kashi, 180 N.J. 45, 49 (2004); State v. Pomo, 95 N.J. 13, 16 (1983).  Review of the Law Division's decision requires the Appellate Division to employ the “substantial evidence rule. ”  State v. Heine, 424 N.J. Super. 48, 58 (App. Div. 2012).  The Appellate Division’s “review is limited to determining whether there is sufficient credible evidence present in the record to support the findings of the Law Division judge not the municipal court. ”  State v. Clarksburg Inn, 375 N.J. Super. 624, 639 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Johnson, 42 N.J. at 161-62).  The Appellate Division owes no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions.  Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (citing State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595, 604 (1990)).  It is respectfully submitted that the decision of the Law Division is based upon substantial credible evidence present in the record and therefore, must be affirmed in its entirety.  As such, it is respectfully requested that the Defendant’s appeal be dismissed.