Court Opinion

ID: 9916704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 15:07:56.553143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:49.385273
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0040-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW STRYCHARZ,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Submitted November 14, 2023 – Decided January 10, 2024

                   Before Judges Natali and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Union County, Municipal Appeal No. 6275.

                   Kalavruzos, Mumola, Hartman, Lento & Duff, LLC,
                   attorneys for appellant (William Les Hartman, on the
                   briefs).

                   William A. Daniel, Union County Prosecutor, attorney
                   for respondent (Milton Samuel Leibowitz, Assistant
                   Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Matthew Strycharz appeals the trial court's August 4, 2022

order finding him guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of

liquor or drugs, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. We affirm.

                                         I.

      On May 3, 2021, around 5:40 p.m., an officer from the Westfield Police

Department was dispatched to investigate a report of a driver hitting another

vehicle. When the officer arrived, he observed defendant's car parked on the

street in front of his residence, with the vehicle's lights on and the driver's side

window down. Defendant was "slumped over" in the driver's seat with his

seatbelt on and the car was running with the keys in the ignition.

      The officer activated his body worn camera and approached the driver's

window. He asked defendant if he was okay, whether he could hear the officer,

and whether he was awake. Defendant did not wake at first but eventually

roused and responded.       The officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol on

defendant's breath and observed his bloodshot and watery eyes. The officer

asked defendant if he had hit any cars while driving and defendant did not

respond or deny driving his car. When the officer asked defendant where he

was coming from, defendant replied "my house."

                                                                              A-0040-22
                                         2
      Defendant complied with the officer's request to exit the car, but stumbled

and struggled to maintain his balance. Another officer arrived on scene and also

observed indicia of defendant's intoxication.

      After defendant failed four field sobriety tests, he was arrested for

operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor or drugs, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. A

search of the vehicle uncovered six containers of alcohol the officer described

as "airplane shooters," four of which were empty, resulting in an additional

charge for having an open container of alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle,

N.J.S.A. 39:4-51(b).

      Both charges were tried on three dates before Municipal Court Judge

Parag Patel, during which defendant invoked his right to remain silent. On

March 22, 2022, Judge Patel found defendant guilty of both offenses and

sentenced him to 180 days in jail, 90 days in the Intoxicated Driver Resource

Center (IDRC), an eight-year license suspension, ten-year ignition interlock, and

mandatory fines and penalties. The municipal court stayed the imposition of the

custodial sentence pending appeal pursuant to State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138

(2014).

      Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Law Division and on August 1,

2022, an appeal de novo on the record was held before Judge John M. Deitch.

                                                                           A-0040-22
                                       3
Defendant argued there were insufficient facts in the record to support the

conviction. Although defendant did not deny he was intoxicated in the running

vehicle, he contended he did not possess the requisite intent to move or operate

the car. He further argued the court should not hold his silence during the

investigation against him because he had a Fifth Amendment right not to answer

the officer's questions.

      On August 4, 2022, in a written decision, the court found defendant guilty

of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. First, the court noted:

             Instead of a bright line rule based upon driving the
             vehicle, or even simply having the engine turned on
             under any circumstance, the finder of fact must rely
             upon what is essentially the totality of circumstances
             test on those rare cases where the defendant is not seen
             operating the vehicle.

      Citing State v. Thompson, 462 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2020), the judge

noted "operation" of a vehicle encompasses more than "driving" a vehicle, and

instead includes instances where a defendant has the intent to drive or where

officers' observations indicate a defendant has driven the vehicle. The court

then addressed defendant's reliance on State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122 (1973), setting

forth the salient facts in that case:

             In Daly, the defendant was arrested on February 15,
             1972, at 3:20 a.m., while sitting in his car, which was
             parked in the parking lot of a tavern. Daly, 64 N.J. at

                                                                           A-0040-22
                                        4
      124. There was no dispute that the tavern closed at 2:00
      a.m. Defendant was sitting in the driver's seat, which
      was slightly reclined, with his vehicle's lights off, but
      the motor running. Id. When the arresting officer
      asked what he was doing, defendant told the officer he
      was sitting in the car to keep warm and intended to
      drive home in a little while. Id. The officer had
      defendant step out of the car and immediately noted he
      was intoxicated. Id. The arresting officer told the
      defendant that due to his condition, that he could not
      drive his vehicle. Id. The defendant became upset and
      uttered that he would drive his car when he felt like it.
      Id. The defendant was then placed under arrest. Id.

      ...

      On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that
      there was insufficient evidence to prove that the
      defendant intended to operate his motor vehicle. Id.
      The . . . Court reasoned that the tavern was required to
      close at 2:00 a.m., and, as a result, the defendant had
      been in his car for at least one hour and twenty minutes
      without driving when come upon by the police. Id.

In rejecting defendant's reliance on Daly, the court reasoned:

      Comparing the factually unique Daly to the case at bar,
      it is clear that it is entirely distinct. Here:

         • Defendant's car was idling on a public street,
           outside his home, and was not within a parking
           lot on private property;

         • The vehicle's lights were on, Defendant was
           seated upright, and he had his seatbelt on;

         • Defendant lived alone, and his driveway was
           clear and available for use. Said differently,

                                                                  A-0040-22
                                 5
                   there was nothing in the record to indicate a
                   reason for Defendant to get drunk on a public
                   street instead of the privacy of his own home;

               • Defendant did not address his operation of the
                 vehicle with the police.     To the contrary,
                 Defendant did not deny operating the vehicle
                 when repeatedly accused of doing so. The most
                 Defendant said was that he had come from his
                 house, which was an obvious necessity, as he had
                 to leave his home to be in his car, which was
                 parked on the street;

               • The weather was appropriate for May, and,
                 despite a drizzle, there was no obvious need for
                 the Defendant to run the car for heat. Further,
                 Defendant's having the driver's side window
                 down indicates that heating the car was not an
                 issue; [and]

               • If the Defendant had a need to rest or sober up,
                 his home was feet away.

The court asked, "what is the more logical, the more reasonable, and the more

probable course of events[,]" and concluded the State proved beyond a

reasonable doubt defendant had operated his vehicle.

      In a footnote, the court also rejected defendant's contention that his silence

at the scene should not have been held against him. Citing both United States

and our Supreme Court precedent, the judge noted "there is no Fifth Amendment

right with regard to an officer's questions about a driver's potential impaired

operation of a motor vehicle[,]" and therefore an officer may ask "routine

                                                                              A-0040-22
                                         6
questions" and may continue questioning if "responses to those questions are

contradictory or contrary to other information known to police[.]" The judge

further opined "a finder of fact is free to reject defense counsel's arguments

claiming that Defendant was simply sitting in his car drinking to the point of

passing out if they do not comport with common sense and human experience—

as is the case here."

      This appeal follows.

                                       II.

      In reviewing the Law Division's decision on a municipal appeal, we must

focus on "whether there is 'sufficient credible evidence . . . in the record' to

support the trial court's findings." Robertson, 228 N.J. at 148 (quoting State v.

Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). "[A]ppellate 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. However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal

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

deference." Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019) (alteration

in original) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140

N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

                                                                           A-0040-22
                                       7
      When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction for a

motor vehicle offense, the relevant question is whether "there is sufficient

credible evidence present therein to support the trial judge's finding beyond a

reasonable doubt." State v. Feintuch, 150 N.J. Super. 414, 423 (App. Div. 1977).

      Defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:

            POINT I

            THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A
            REASONABLE DOUBT THAT [DEFENDANT]
            EITHER RECENTLY OPERATED OR INTENDED
            TO OPERATE HIS MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE
            UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.

            POINT II

            THE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN
            RELYING ON DEFENDANT'S SILENCE AS
            EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT.

      Having reviewed defendant's contentions in light of the record, we affirm

substantially for the reasons articulated in Judge Deitch's well-reasoned

decision. We add the following brief comments.

      Defendant was belted into the driver's seat of his car, slumped over and

sleeping. The car was parked on the street outside of his residence in the early

evening, with the keys in the ignition, engine running, window down and lights

on. When asked if he had recently driven his car, defendant did not respond,

                                                                          A-0040-22
                                       8
deny or attempt to explain why he was in the vehicle; when asked where he was

coming from, defendant said he was coming from his house. Officers observed

several indicia of alcohol use in defendant's appearance, gait and inability to

complete four field sobriety tests. We agree with the court's determination the

facts attendant here are readily distinguishable from Daly, and demonstrate

beyond a reasonable doubt defendant operated his vehicle under the influence

of alcohol.     Likewise, we take no issue with the judge's consideration of

defendant's lack of responsiveness to the officers, for the reasons articulated in

his decision.

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-0040-22
                                        9