NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3077-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEVIN KUTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted January 10, 2017 – Decided June 23, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Municipal
Appeal No. 14-066.
Kevin Kute, appellant pro se.
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Keri-
Leigh Schaefer, Special Deputy Attorney
General, Acting Assistant Prosecutor; of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Kevin Kute appeals his conviction for speeding,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-98, following a trial de novo in the Law Division.
We affirm.
We glean the following facts from the record. Colts Neck
Police Officer Steven Panepinto testified that at about 10:30 p.m.
on May 2, 2014, he was on patrol on Route 34 near the Naval Weapons
Station Earle when he observed a motor vehicle traveling at a high
rate of speed. He activated his speed detection device, which
clocked the vehicle as traveling seventy miles per hour in a fifty-
mile-per-hour-zone. Panepinto initiated a motor vehicle stop and
issued defendant a summons generated through the E-ticket system
that reflected defendant was driving a silver Honda station wagon
bearing a New Jersey license plate. Panepinto stated that the E-
ticket may have inputted the incorrect vehicle type, but identified
defendant in court as the driver to whom he issued the summons.
Defendant testified that Panepinto stopped him for speeding,
but claimed it was on Route 18, not Route 34, and could not say
if he was speeding. He claimed that he was driving a Honda sedan,
not a Honda station wagon. Noting that Panepinto's name on the
summons was spelled "Panipinto," defendant claimed that he was not
sure if Panepinto was the officer who issued him the summons.
The municipal court judge found Panepinto gave credible
testimony that defendant was driving a Honda on Route 34 and
speeding at seventy miles per hour. The judge reasoned it was of
no significance that the summons specified that defendant was
2 A-3077-14T1
driving a station wagon, rather than a sedan, as defendant
testified.
Upon a trial de novo on the record, Judge Mellaci found
defendant guilty anew. In his oral decision, the judge noted that
Panepinto's testimony was credible, and there was sufficient
evidence that defendant was guilty of speeding beyond a reasonable
doubt. The judge found that defendant's argument concerning the
misspelling of Panepinto's name "is without merit and
nonsensical." He also rejected as meritless defendant's claim
that the municipal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, defendant argues that:
POINT I
THE LAW DIVISION JUDGE APPEARS TO HAVE BASED
HIS JUDGMENT UPON AN ENTIRELY ERRONEOUS
READING OF THE RECORD BELOW.
POINT II
THE PRIMARY FACT WITNESS'S TESTIMONY SUGGESTS
THAT HE MAY HAVE MISTAKEN THE IDENTITY OF THE
VEHICLE HE WAS PURSUING.
POINT III
THE RECORD RELIED UPON BY THE LAW DIVISION
JUDGE WAS INFECTED.
POINT IV
OFFICER PANEPINTO'S SUBMISSIONS COULD NOT HAVE
LED TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT HIS
TESTIMONY WAS CREDIBLE.
3 A-3077-14T1
POINT V
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY OR
INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Our review of the trial court's factual findings is limited
to whether the conclusions of the Law Division judge "could
reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence
present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964).
Unlike the Law Division, we do not independently assess the
evidence. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). The rule
of deference is more compelling where, such as here, the municipal
and Law Division judges made concurrent findings. Id. 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. (citing Midler v. Heinowitz,
10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)). We owe no deference to the trial
judge's legal conclusions. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Manalapan
Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (citing State v. Brown, 118
N.J. 595, 604 (1990)).
Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal
standards, we find that Judge Mellaci correctly addressed
defendant's arguments, and we affirm substantially for the reasons
4 A-3077-14T1
stated in his opinion. Defendant's appellate arguments are without
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
5 A-3077-14T1