RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3568-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ARTHUR W. VESPIGNANI,

a/k/a ARTHUR WILLIAM

VESPIGNANI, ARTHUR 

WILLIAM VESPIGNANI, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Argued September 17, 2019 - Decided 

Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Warren County, Accusation No. 18-01-

0027.

James H. Maynard, Designated Counsel, argued the 

cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public 

Defender, attorney; James H. Maynard, on the briefs).

Dit Mosco, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for 

respondent (Richard T. Burke, Warren County 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 8, 2019
2

A-3568-17T1

Prosecutor, attorney; Kelly A. Shelton, of counsel and 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Arthur W. Vespignani pleaded guilty to third-degree 

endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(b), stemming from 

his possession of child pornography, and fourth-degree violation of the 

conditions of community supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d), and was 

sentenced in accordance with a negotiated agreement to four years in State 

prison on the former and a concurrent eighteen-months on the latter and to 

parole supervision for life by consent. He appeals his sentence raising two 

issues:

POINT I

TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 

REJECTING ALL BUT ONE MITIGATING 

FACTOR PROPOSED BY THE DEFENDANT, AND 

BY FINDING AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT 

WERE UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS IN THE 

RECORD [NOT RAISED BELOW].

POINT II

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE 

[NOT RAISED BELOW].
3

A-3568-17T1

Having reviewed the record, we find the arguments without sufficient merit to 

warrant any extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2). 

We add only the following.

Defendant was sentenced to three years in State prison and community 

supervision for life in 2003, after he drove to meet a fourteen-year-old girl for 

sex whom he had been conversing with online, not knowing "the girl" was an 

FBI agent. He was convicted of violating his community supervision in 2013, 

three years before his arrest on these charges of having downloaded onto a 

thumb drive images depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child. 

At sentencing, defendant presented a psychological evaluation recently 

performed by Dr. Witt, recommending against incarceration. In that 

evaluation, Dr. Witt noted his findings were "mixed." "On the negative side," 

Dr. Witt found that "despite having experienced significant legal consequences 

in 2003 and despite being supervised on [community supervision for life], 

[defendant] has relapsed with regard to downloading child pornography,"

resulting in a rise in his risk assessment scores since his last evaluation in 

2013. "On the positive side," Dr. Witt noted defendant's "therapist, a sex 

offender treatment expert, indicates that for the first time, [defendant] is taking 

psychotherapy seriously, showing more openness in treatment, and 
4

A-3568-17T1

demonstrating a high degree of commitment and motivation," which Dr. Witt 

found evident in his interview with defendant. Defendant's therapist provided 

a letter attesting to his progress in therapy, asserting a prison term "would 

destabilize him emotionally and disrupt his ability to support himself and his 

family."

Judge Curry took both evaluations as well as the entirety of the presentence report, which noted defendant's prior years of therapy, into account in 

finding aggravating factors three, six and nine, giving "light weight" to 

mitigating factor eleven, and rejecting defendant's proffer of mitigating factors 

one, two, four, seven, eight, nine and twelve. In his comprehensive statement

imposing sentence, Judge Curry stressed that possession of child pornography 

is not a "victimless crime" and that defendant could not fail to appreciate the 

wrongfulness of his conduct.

While pleased to note the progress defendant had made recently in 

therapy, the judge noted defendant's prior record and that these offenses 

occurred while defendant continued under community supervision for life, 

underscoring the risk of further offense and the need to deter. In light of 

defendant's history, the judge determined he could not find that recent therapy 
5

A-3568-17T1

made it unlikely at this point that defendant would reoffend or would be 

particularly likely to respond to probationary treatment.

Judge Curry obviously took considerable care in crafting the sentence 

imposed in this case, weighing each of defendant's arguments. Our review of 

the sentencing transcript convinces us that the judge's careful findings and 

balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors are supported by adequate 

evidence in the record, and the sentence imposed is neither inconsistent with 

sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice nor shocking to the 

judicial conscience. See State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70-71 (2014); State v. 

Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 608 (2010); State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 180-81 

(2009). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed.

Affirmed.