NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2639-23 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEAN-ODLIN JEAN-NOEL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted May 29, 2025 – Decided June 3, 2025 Before Judges Natali and Vinci.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. MA-2023-024.

Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP, attorneys for appellant (Christine P. Clark, of counsel and on the briefs).

Theodore N. Stevens II, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Following a municipal court appeal to the Law Division, Judge Arthur J.

Batista presided over the trial de novo and, after considering the testimony and documentary evidence, affirmed defendant Jean-Odlin Jean-Noel's convictions for reckless and careless driving. N.J.S.A. 39:4-96 and -97. He also sentenced defendant, consistent with the municipal court, to a thirty-day license suspension and a $580 fine. In his written decision, Judge Batista concluded the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of both careless and reckless driving for speeding, swerving over a double yellow line, and driving over a curb and into the fence of a private residence.

On appeal, defendant again challenges his convictions and sentence and argues: 1) we should reject the municipal court's and Judge Batista's factual and credibility findings; 2) the State failed to establish his guilt of either charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) his license suspension and $580 fine should be vacated or reduced. After considering the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied that all of defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Batista in his thorough and well-reasoned written decision.

Affirmed.

A-2639-23