NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0900-18T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MILAN SHAH, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________ Argued November 6, 2019 – Decided November 26, 2019 Before Judges Yannotti and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Municipal Appeal No. 18- 15. Greggory M. Marootian argued the cause for appellant. Natacha Despinos Peavey, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Natacha Despinos Peavey, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Milan Shah appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The court sentenced defendant to a ninety- day license suspension, imposed applicable fines and costs, and required defendant to spend twelve hours at the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. On October 9, 2016, New Jersey State Trooper Harris observed defendant failing to maintain lanes on Interstate 78 westbound in Warren Township. Trooper Harris effectuated a motor vehicle stop and detected the odor of alcohol first emanating from the interior of the vehicle, then on defendant's breath. Defendant admitted having a couple of beers that night. His speech was slow. A series of field sobriety tests were conducted by Trooper Harris on defendant. He swayed and was unable to perform the Walk and Turn Test or the One-Leg Stand Test. Trooper Harris noticed defendant's eyes were bloodshot. He was unable to perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test. Defendant was arrested for DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and brought to the processing area, where he was informed of his Miranda rights,1 advised of his obligation to provide breath 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). A-0900-18T3 2 samples, and read the Attorney General's Standard Statement For Motor Vehicle Operators, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e). When asked to submit samples of his breath for testing, he initially agreed but later refused. An Alcotest was administered but defendant did not provide the minimum volume of air necessary to perform the test. Defendant was charged with DWI; failing to consent to provide breath samples, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2; refusing to submit to a breath test, N.J.S.A. 39:4- 50.4(a); failing to maintain a lane of travel, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b); and careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. On October 17, 2016, defendant pled not guilty, served an initial discovery request, and demanded a speedy trial. The matter was scheduled for November 29, 2016, but adjourned until January 3, 2017 because defendant wanted to retain an expert. A defense expert report was not served by January 3, 2017, necessitating another adjournment to January 10, 2017. By consent, the parties agreed to adjourn the trial until February 21, 2017, to discuss a possible resolution. The February 21, 2017 trial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals