STATE v. MINJIN OH, A-1611-12T4. (2013)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20131023329
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2013
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Defendant Minjin Oh appeals from the rejection of his application to the Pre-Trial Intervention Program (PTI). We affirm. After the prosecutor's office rejected his application, defendant appealed to the Law Division. In a comprehensive oral opinion issued on October 3, 2011, the trial judge considered the prosecutor's decision, as well as the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e. Th
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Defendant Minjin Oh appeals from the rejection of his application to the Pre-Trial Intervention Program (PTI). We affirm. After the prosecutor's office rejected his application, defendant appealed to the Law Division. In a comprehensive oral opinion issued on October 3, 2011, the trial judge considered the prosecutor's decision, as well as the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e. The..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Minjin Oh appeals from the rejection of his application to the Pre-Trial Intervention Program (PTI). We affirm.
After the prosecutor's office rejected his application, defendant appealed to the Law Division. In a comprehensive oral opinion issued on October 3, 2011, the trial judge considered the prosecutor's decision, as well as the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e. The judge found no gross and patent abuse of the prosecutor's discretion in rejecting defendant from PTI. See State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246-47 (1995).
On this appeal, defendant once again argues that "the State's decision to reject defendant from Pre-trial Intervention was a patent and gross abuse of discretion, because defendant presented compelling reasons for his acceptance." Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we cannot agree. Defendant's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court.
Affirmed.
Source: Leagle
