STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PAUL C. WILLIAMS (18-04, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5833-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PAUL C. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted January 21, 2020 – Decided March 27, 2020
Before Judges Messano and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Municipal Appeal No. 18-04.
Paul Williams, appellant pro se.
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
Defendant, Paul Williams, appeals pro se from an order denying his
motion to file a municipal court appeal de novo as within time. Defendant
contends that the refusal to consider an appeal of his municipal court convictions
violates his equal protection and due process rights. We disagree and affirm the
Law Division judge's order denying defendant's motion to file his untimely
appeal nunc pro tunc.
I.
On October 30, 2017, defendant was issued motor vehicle summonses
charging him with (1) delaying traffic, N.J.S.A. 39:4-56; (2) parking on a
highway, N.J.S.A. 39:4-136; (3) failure to observe a traffic control device,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, and (4) unsafe lane change, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). The matter
was tried in the Toms River Municipal Court on April 13, 2018. The municipal
court judge found defendant guilty of delaying traffic and parking on the
highway but acquitted defendant of the remaining two traffic offenses. The
judge imposed fines of $56.00 on both convictions and also imposed costs of
$33.00 on both offenses.
On May 7, 2018—four days after the time to appeal expired pursuant to
Rule 3:23-2—defendant contacted the Toms River municipal court and
requested a copy of a judgment of conviction. On May 9, 2018, he filed a motion
A-5833-17T4
2
for leave to file an appeal to the Superior Court as within time. That motion was
denied by a Law Division judge on June 7, 2018.
II.
Defendant raises the following contention for our consideration:
THE LAW DIVISION DENIED APPELLANT DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAW, BY DENYING THE MOTION TO FILE
APPEAL NUNC PRO TUNC.
Defendant's procedural and constitutional arguments lack sufficient merit
to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Rule 3:23-2
provides that an appeal from a municipal court conviction must be filed within
20 days. The rule further provides that, "[o]n failure to comply with each of the
foregoing requirements, that appeal shall be dismissed by the Superior Court,
Law Division without further notice or hearing."
Defendant appears to have assumed incorrectly that a written judgment of
conviction would be mailed to him. We appreciate that defendant appears before
us pro se. Pro se litigants, however, must still follow the rules. See State v.
Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499, 512 (1992) (noting that pro se defendants must "conduct
their defense in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure and
evidence"). It is noteworthy that defendant did not make inquiries concerni ng
the appeals process until after the filing deadline had already expired. We note
A-5833-17T4
3
further that defendant has not established that he was misadvised by the
municipal court judge as to the time within which an appeal must be filed. 1
Indeed, the record before us does not show what defendant was told with respect
to his right to appeal because he has not provided us with a transcript of the
municipal court proceeding. That failure provides an independent basis to reject
his appeal under Rule 3:23-3.
Affirmed.
1
Defendant does not claim the municipal court judge improperly advised him
of the process for filing an appeal, nor has he sought to obtain proofs to support
such a claim. Notably, he has not supplied, or even ordered, transcripts of the
municipal court proceedings as part of his appeal. In his brief, defendant simply
states, "There does not appear to be any record currently at hand of the
proceedings before the Municipal Court; particularly of what, if anything, the
Court advised [defendant] regarding his right to appeal."
A-5833-17T4
4