RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3417-16T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY A. CALABRESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Argued October 15, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Messano and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket 

No. FO-15-0215-17.

Mitchell J. Ansell argued the cause for appellant 

(Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys; Mitchell J. 

Ansell, on the brief).

Hillary H. Bryce argued the cause for respondent 

(Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney; Hillary H. Bryce, Supervising 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 13, 2018
2

A-3417-16T2

After a bench trial, defendant appeals from his conviction of disorderly 

persons contempt, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(2), for violating a temporary restraining 

order (TRO) previously obtained by his ex-girlfriend under the Prevention of 

Domestic Violence Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. We affirm.

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EVERY 

ELEMENT OF N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 BEYOND A 

REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE TRO MARKED S-1 

IN EVIDENCE WAS NO LONGER IN EFFECT ON 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2016, AS IT HAD BEEN 

SUPERSEDED BY AN ATRO ISSUED ON 

OCTOBER 6, 2016. (PARTIALLY RAISED BELOW).

POINT II

THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF 

LAW MADE BY THE TRIAL [JUDGE] WERE 

AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

THEREFORE, THE CONVICTION IN THIS 

MATTER MUST BE VACATED. (NOT RAISED 

BELOW).

We conclude that defendant's contention in Point I is without sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add the 

following brief remarks. In August 2016, the ex-girlfriend obtained and served 

the TRO on defendant. In September 2016, the municipal court amended the 

TRO (ATRO) to include information as to the history of domestic violence 

between the parties. The TRO and ATRO prohibited defendant from contacting 
3

A-3417-16T2

the ex-girlfriend. Although the State moved only the TRO into evidence – and 

even assuming defendant had not received the ATRO – the TRO remained 

binding on defendant. See State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 189 (2010) (stating 

that "a defendant is bound to obey [a] court's order until the order is vacated 

through a judicial proceeding"). "[A]s long as a court order exists and a 

defendant has knowledge of it [like here], the defendant may be prosecuted for 

a violation thereof." Id. at 190.

Our review of a finding of guilt in a contempt proceeding is limited to 

determining "whether the record contains sufficient [credible] evidence to 

support the judge's conclusion." State v. J.T., 294 N.J. Super. 540, 544 (App. 

Div. 1996) (citing State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). Factual findings 

of the trial judge are generally accorded deference given the judge's "opportunity 

to make first-hand credibility judgments about the witnesses who appear on the 

stand; [the judge] has a 'feel of the case' that can never be realized by a review 

of the cold record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 

104 (2008) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 

293 (2007)). Nevertheless, in evaluating a trial judge's findings in a criminal 

case, we must ensure that the State has carried its burden of proving a 

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
4

A-3417-16T2

To obtain a conviction of the disorderly persons offense of contempt for 

violating a TRO issued under the Act, the State must prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that defendant knowingly violated such an order. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(2);

see also State v. Finamore, 338 N.J. Super. 130, 138 (App. Div. 2001). "[T]he 

evidence must allow at least a reasonable inference that a defendant charged 

with violating a [TRO] knew his conduct would bring about a prohibited result." 

State v. S.K., 423 N.J. Super. 540, 547 (App. Div. 2012). N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(2) 

states in relevant part: "A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of 

his conduct or the attendant circumstances if he is aware that his conduct is of 

that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he is aware of a high probability 

of their existence."

After defendant received the TRO, the ex-girlfriend received six calls and 

two voicemails on her cell phone between 4:00 a.m. and 4:08 a.m. These calls 

came from defendant's phone. One of the voicemails, which the ex-girlfriend 

testified contained defendant's voice, said "[a]nswer the phone, you stupid 

bitch." At the trial, defendant – who knew about the TRO and its requirement 

that he not contact the ex-girlfriend – defended the charges by attempting to 

show he did not make the calls. That is, he suggested that the six calls emanated 

from a "spoofing app."
5

A-3417-16T2

The judge found the ex-girlfriend credible. She characterized her

testimony as "straightforward[;] she was direct . . . and responsive." The judge 

added that

she was clear – that the calls were made to her phone. 

She did not notably appear to overreach in her 

testimony. And, much of her testimony concerning her 

receipt of the calls was, in this [c]ourt's view, unassailed.

. . . [A]nd very importantly, . . . in terms of 

evaluating [her] credibility, . . . she was corroborated 

by [an officer] in this matter.

. . . [The officer] used the same phone number 

[used to call the ex-girlfriend] to call . . . defendant and 

indeed spoke to . . . defendant . . . .

. . . . 

In this [c]ourt's view, . . . especially in light of 

[the ex-girlfriend's] unequivocal testimony that she 

recognized . . . defendant's voice . . . and maintained 

corroborating evidence, . . . via [the] screen shots[,] . . 

. the calls indeed occurred . . . .

[The ex-girlfriend's] testimony was, again, 

corroborated by her actions that very same day that she 

received the calls. . . . [The officer and the exgirlfriend] appeared credible . . . .

The judge did not believe the testimony from defendant's mother – who testified 

that it was not her son's voice on the voicemail – which the judge stated was an 

"overreach." And the judge flat out rejected – as "speculative" and "illogical" –
6

A-3417-16T2

defendant's defense that "spoofing apps" were purportedly the cause of the calls

to the ex-girlfriend.

The judge applied the correct law and found defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. We conclude there exists sufficient credible evidence in the 

record to support the judge's findings, which we will not disturb.

Affirmed.