NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1544-16T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TIMOTHY SECK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted August 8, 2018 – Decided August 30, 2018
Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Morris County, Municipal Appeal
No. 16-008.
Timothy Seck, appellant pro se.
Fredric M. Knapp, Morris County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Paula Jordao,
Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Pro se defendant Timothy Seck appeals from a November 1, 2016
order entered after the Law Division conducted a trial de novo on
the record. The trial judge found defendant guilty of failure to
maintain lamps, N.J.S.A. 39:3-66; reckless driving, N.J.S.A.
39:4-96; refusal to consent to take samples of breath, N.J.S.A.
39:4-50.2; and refusal to submit to a chemical test, N.J.S.A.
39:4-50.4a. We affirm.
I
On December 12, 2015, Boonton Police Officer Brian Walinski
observed defendant's Jeep, which had a non-illuminating tail
light, make a left turn at a high speed. The officer followed
defendant in his marked patrol vehicle, and saw him quickly
accelerate in a twenty-five miles-per-hour residential zone. The
officer accelerated to approximately sixty miles-per-hour to
pursue defendant.
After performing a motor vehicle stop, the officer observed
defendant had slow hand movements, bloodshot and watery eyes, and
emitted an odor of alcohol. Based on those observations, the
officer requested defendant perform field sobriety tests, which
defendant failed to complete successfully.
After defendant refused to provide a breath sample for a
portable breath test, the officer arrested defendant for driving
while intoxicated (DWI). At the police station, defendant refused
to provide Alcotest breath samples. Ultimately, the officer issued
defendant summonses for failure to maintain lamps, N.J.S.A. 39:3-
66; reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96; refusal to consent to take
samples of breath; N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2; refusal to submit to a
2 A-1544-16T1
chemical test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a; DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50; and DWI
in a school zone; N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(g)(1).
The Boonton Municipal Court held a trial on April 1, 2016.
The municipal court found defendant guilty of all charges except
for the DWI and DWI in a school zone. The court sentenced defendant
to fines, court costs, and assessment fees; twelve hours served
at the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center; one year license
revocation; and six months installation of an interlock device.
Defendant appealed, and the municipal court granted defendant's
request for a stay of his license suspension pending appeal.
On October 21, 2016, Judge James M. DeMarzo conducted a trial
de novo based on the municipal court record. The judge found
defendant subject to jurisdiction under the laws of New Jersey,
and that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
refused to provide breath samples, drove recklessly, and failed
to properly maintain his vehicle's lamps. Judge DeMarzo imposed
the same penalties as the municipal court. This appeal followed.
II
On appeal, defendant argues the municipal and trial court
violated his constitutional due process rights. He further asserts
both courts lacked jurisdiction over him, and he did not understand
the nature of the charges against him. We have carefully reviewed
the record and find no basis for reversal. We therefore affirm
3 A-1544-16T1
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge DeMarzo's
comprehensive twenty-seven page opinion.
Accordingly, we conclude sufficient, credible evidence
supports Judge DeMarzo's opinion, and it is consistent with the
applicable law. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)
(citation omitted). Moreover, defendant's jurisdictional
arguments, based on assertions of sovereign citizenship, lack
sufficient merit to warrant comment in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
4 A-1544-16T1