SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4550-18T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN LIM,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted April 22, 2020 – Decided May 13, 2020

Judges Haas and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Municipal Appeal No. 18-23.

The Hernandez Law Firm, PC, attorney for appellant 

(Thomas Michael Cannavo, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief 

Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Cheryl L. Hammel, 

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-4550-18T3

Defendant Jonathan Lim appeals his Law Division conviction for driving 

while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. We affirm, substantially for the 

reasons set forth in Judge Michael T. Collins' thoughtful and comprehensive 

written opinion dated June 6, 2019.

On July 23, 2017, Officer Matthew Chester of the Harvey Cedars Police 

Department answered a phone call from an anonymous caller who reported 

seeing a man leave the beach wearing nothing but a jacket, get into a white truck 

and drive west. The caller also said he saw the driver run a red light. Officer 

Chester left the station in an unmarked patrol car to investigate. 

Officer Chester found a white truck in the area, stopped in the middle of 

the road and facing the wrong direction. The truck was about fifty feet away 

when the officer saw defendant in the driver's seat. Officer Chester decided to 

back up and drive around the block rather than approach the truck head on. As 

the officer approached the truck, he saw defendant adjusting himself in the 

passenger seat while a female, later identified as Susan Elliott, walked from the 

passenger side to the driver's side of the truck. The officer believed defendant 

and Elliott were switching seats. He asked both parties for identification. 

During the stop, the officer observed that defendant had bloodshot, glassy 

eyes and was slouched over in the passenger seat, wearing nothing but a jacket 
3

A-4550-18T3

covering his waist area. Defendant's speech was slurred, and the officer detected

an odor of alcohol emanating from inside the truck. Although Elliott initially 

claimed she drove the truck and defendant adamantly denied driving, Elliott 

eventually admitted defendant drove the truck. Officer Chester then asked 

defendant to step out of the truck to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs). The 

FSTs were captured on the officer's dash-cam recorder. Defendant was arrested 

for DWI after he failed these tests. 

Defendant was transported to the Ship Bottom Police Department to 

submit to an Alcotest. Patrolman Anthony Abbatemarco commenced the 

twenty-minute observation period for the Alcotest and noted the start time of the 

observation period was 9:02 p.m. and that it concluded at 9:22 p.m. Officer 

Chester also observed defendant during this period. Based on the results of the 

Alcotest, defendant's BAC was 0.12%. He received summonses for DWI, 

careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97 and reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96.

Defendant requested adjournments for his initial municipal court dates

and requested a waiver of his appearance for an October 2017 court date. In 

December 2017, defendant requested and received another adjournment to hire 

an expert. In February 2018, defendant advised that his expert was unavailable 

for a scheduled April 2018 trial date and he received another postponement. The 
4

A-4550-18T3

next trial date in May 2018 was adjourned due to the unavailability of the 

assigned judge, and the matter was rescheduled to September 17, 2018. 

Prior to the rescheduled trial date, defendant filed a motion to suppress 

and a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. These motions were denied. 

Defendant also moved to exclude his Alcotest results, claiming the State 

committed a discovery violation by failing to produce videos of the interior 

lobby and hallway of the Ship Bottom Police Department. The municipal court 

conducted an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to address the admissibility of the Alcotest 

readings. Following the hearing, the municipal judge admitted these readings

and rejected defendant's argument that the requested videos, if they existed, were 

relevant or material to his defense. The trial commenced but was adjourned at 

defendant's request. 

On October 22, 2018, defendant was found guilty of DWI and careless 

driving, but found not guilty of reckless driving. The judge noted this was 

defendant's fifth conviction for DWI but would be treated as a third conviction. 

Accordingly, on the DWI conviction, defendant was sentenced to a $1006 fine, 

$33 court costs, $75 VCCO, $55 SNSF and a $225 surcharge. Defendant also 

was sentenced to a driver's license suspension of ten years and the installation 

of an ignition interlock device for twelve years concurrent to the license 
5

A-4550-18T3

suspension, plus twelve hours of detainment at an Intoxicated Driver Resource 

Center (IDRC). Additionally, defendant received a mandatory 180-day jail 

term, 90 days of which could be served at an approved inpatient program. On 

the careless driving conviction, the municipal judge imposed a $156 fine and 

$33 court costs. At defendant's request, the judge stayed his incarceration 

pending appeal. 

After defendant's de novo trial in the Law Division, he again was found 

guilty of DWI and careless driving. Judge Collins found the sentence for the 

latter conviction should merge with the sentence for defendant's DWI and 

imposed the same jail term, license suspension, ignition interlock installation 

and IDRC requirements as the municipal judge. 

On appeal, defendant presents several arguments for our consideration, 

which were considered by Judge Collins, as follows:

POINT I

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN FAILING TO DE 

NOVO DISMISS THE CHARGES AGAINST THE 

DEFENDANT FOR VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH 

AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL. 

 POINT II

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN DENYING THE 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS. EVEN IF THE INITIAL 

DETENTION OF DEFENDANT WERE 
6

A-4550-18T3

UNLAWFUL, THE PROLONGED DETENTION 

BEFORE HE WAS ORDERED OUT OF THE CAR 

CONSTITUTED A DE FACTO ARREST NOT 

SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.

 POINT III

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND 

A DISCOVERY VIOLATION AND EXCLUDE THE 

ALCOTEST READINGS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

PURSUANT TO [RULE] 7:7-7, DESTRUCTION OF 

THE IN-STATION OR OTHER RELEVANT DWI 

VIDEO OR FAILURE TO PRESERVE SUCH 

RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS A DISCOVERY 

VIOLATION MANDATING AT LEAST AN 

ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE STATE. 

 POINT IV

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN FAILING TO FIND 

A TWENTY MINUTE OBSERVATION 

VIOLATION. THUS, THE ALCOTEST READINGS 

SHOULD [BE] EXCLUDED AND DEFENDANT 

[ACQUITTED] OF THE PER SE PRONG OF THE 

DWI OFFENSE.

 POINT V

THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN FINDING 

DEFENDANT GUILTY DE NOVO OF THE 

OBSERVATIONAL PRONG OF THE DWI 

STATUTE AND FINDING OPERATION BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT.
7

A-4550-18T3

Following a careful review of the record, we conclude defendant's 

arguments lack merit. Except as addressed below, they do not warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). 

On appeal from a municipal court to the Law Division, the review is 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). 

Unlike the Law Division, however, we do not independently assess the evidence. 

State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471-72 (1999). Our "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 

present in the record, considering the proofs as a whole." State v. Ebert, 377 

N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted).

The rule of deference is more compelling where, as here, the municipal 

and Law Division judges made concurrent findings. Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474. 

"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should 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." Ibid.

"Therefore, appellate review of the factual and credibility findings of the 
8

A-4550-18T3

municipal court and the Law Division 'is exceedingly narrow.'" State v. Reece, 

222 N.J. 154, 167 (2015) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470). 

Unless there is an obvious and exceptional showing of error, we will not 

disturb the Law Division's findings when the municipal court and Law Division 

"have entered concurrent judgments on purely factual issues." Ibid. (citing 

Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474). But, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the 

legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any 

special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 

N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

Governed by these principles, we are satisfied Judge Collins 

comprehensively and correctly addressed defendant's arguments in his June 6, 

2019 opinion. Further, before he found defendant guilty of DWI and imposed

the same sentence as the municipal judge, Judge Collins found a review of the 

dash-cam video of the stop was "critical in reaching [his] findings as to the 

results of the FSTs." Judge Collins added, "[Officer] Chester's observations 

throughout the entire encounter with [d]efendant satisfy the burden of proof 

necessary to convict [d]efendant with driving while intoxicated." 
9

A-4550-18T3

Given our standard of review, we perceive no basis to disturb Judge 

Collins' finding that defendant was guilty of DWI as it was supported by 

overwhelming credible evidence in the record. 

Affirmed. To the extent the stay of the custodial portion of defendant's 

sentence remained in effect pending his de novo appeal, it now is vacated. The 

trial court shall administer the implementation of the sentence in the ordinary 

course.