Acting Town Council President James M. Mageau will appeal a judge’s ruling Monday that found him guilty of simple assault and would require anger management counseling.

Mageau’s sentence, however, is stayed while he appeals to the Superior Court for a trial by jury.

The charge stems from an incident at Town Hall on July 14, when Mageau struck a camera held by Cliff Vanover. During his one-day trial last week, Mageau, who is running for re-election, said he felt threatened when he suddenly encountered Vanover after rounding a corner in Town Hall and reacted out of fear.

But Associate District Court Judge William C. Clifton called Mageau’s claim of selfdefense “nonsense,” adding he just couldn’t see how a camera could be so frightening.

“I’ve been trying for the life of me to determine why someone holding a small camcorder poses an imminent threat,” Clifton said.

If that were truly the case, the judge continued, Mageau would feel threatened by the cameramen that were present in the courtroom.

“That’s nonsense. That’s illogical. It makes no sense,’’ Clifton said.

Clifton sentenced Mageau to attend anger management classes, telling the controversial town councilman that he has a “volatile, confrontational personality.” He rejected a request from the town’s attorney, Patrick Sullivan, that Mageau be placed on probation, and instead filed his case for one year. That means if Mageau keeps the peace for the next 12 months and attends his anger management classes, the case goes away. He was also ordered to stay away from Vanover, except at Town Council meetings. Simple assault is a misdemeanor.

Clifton told the 69-year-old Mageau it was apparent just from the videos that were played during his trial that “you have a problem managing your temper.’’

But after the sentencing, Mageau denied he had an anger problem, and he appealed Clifton’s decision to Superior Court, where he is entitled to a jury trial. He said he has admitted “time and time again’’ that sometimes his responses aren’t always “politically correct.’’ Then, Mageau started to talk of love. Anger, he said, is like love, in that they are both human emotions.

“Do I need love management?’’ he asked.

Mageau’s attorney, Richard Corley, said he expected Mageau would be found not guilty by a jury of his peers. In the meantime, while the appeal is pending, Mageau will not have to attend anger management classes, Corley said.

All three members of the four-member Town Council were present when Clifton announced his decision. Afterwards, in the hallway, councilman Bruce Picard and councilwoman Katharine Waterman declined comment, but councilwoman Harriett Allen said she agreed with Clifton’s decision.

“He should have been convicted, of course,” said Allen.

“I’ve always said he’s a violent man and it’s not appropriate for him to be on the council,’’ Allen said.

Noting that Mageau had once been convicted of assaulting Charlestown resident John LaChapelle, a case that has since been expunged, Allen said, “Same ole, same ole. It’s history repeating itself.”

Before announcing his decision, Clifton gave lawyers for both sides the opportunity to make final arguments. Corley spoke first, reiterating what he said at trial; namely, that the legal definition of assault requires the unlawful touching of a person and that there was no evidence introduced during the trial to show that Mageau had ever touched Vanover. His camera, yes, but not his body.

“I’ll be very brief. He was charged with assault and battery and there was no assault and battery,’’ Corley said.

Corley went on to ask Clifton to consider the “demeanor” of Vanover, when he testified last week, saying Vanover proved himself to be a political adversary of Mageau’s and not a “neutral victim.” Noting that Vanover is a member of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, a group that opposes Mageau’s re-election, and that he has opposed Mageau on many recent issues, Corley said, “Mr. Vanover obviously has bad blood toward my client. He obviously wants to see him ousted.”

In response, Clifton said it was clear to him that the relationship between Mageau and Vanover was “not harmonious, to say the least,” and that it hadn’t been for some time. But it wasn’t his job to examine their relationship, Clifton said, only to determine whether an assault had been committed.

On that issue, Sullivan argued that it wasn’t only Vanover who testified at trial, that two other people also testified that they saw Mageau strike Vanover’s camera. As for Mageau’s claim that he was afraid, Sullivan reminded the court of Mageau’s voice on the video, saying “Get that camera out of my face.’’

“That doesn’t sound like someone who’s afraid to me,” Sullivan said.

Given an opportunity to address the court, Mageau told Clifton that when he testified that he had felt threatened and fearful on July 14, it was because of several events that led up to that night and not just because he encountered a man with a camera in the hallway of Town Hall.

“It was a litany of things,” Mageau said.

But Clifton said he had already heard that at trial. Furthermore, he said, “You did not appear to be alarmed or afraid as I watched the video.’’

In addition to the anger management classes and the one-year filing, the judge ordered Mageau to pay Vanover for the damage to his camera. He released Mageau on $1,000 personal recognizance pending his Superior Court appeal.