Filed: Jun. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2011
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Defendant was indicted for third-degree theft by unlawful taking, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a), committed on July 14, July 31 and August 6, 2008. Defendant submitted an application for admission into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). The Criminal Division Manager for the Somerset, Hunterdon, Warren Vicinage recommended denial of the application. In making this recommendation, the Criminal Division M
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Defendant was indicted for third-degree theft by unlawful taking, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a), committed on July 14, July 31 and August 6, 2008. Defendant submitted an application for admission into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). The Criminal Division Manager for the Somerset, Hunterdon, Warren Vicinage recommended denial of the application. In making this recommendation, the Criminal Division Ma..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was indicted for third-degree theft by unlawful taking, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a), committed on July 14, July 31 and August 6, 2008.
Defendant submitted an application for admission into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). The Criminal Division Manager for the Somerset, Hunterdon, Warren Vicinage recommended denial of the application. In making this recommendation, the Criminal Division Manager stated:
The defendant has a prior conviction for an offense, which occurred, as recently as, February 14, 2008. On March 11, 2008, [defendant] was convicted of Shoplifting before the Lopatcong Township Municipal Court. According to the Lopatcong Township Municipal Court Administrator, . . . [defendant] still owes a balance of $343.00 (which includes a $100. Contempt fee) having paid only one payment of $50.00, which was paid on July 23, 2008. According to [the Municipal Court Administrator, defendant] is in jeopardy of having her driver's license suspended due to her failure to make the appropriate time payments on this case.
This Shoplifting offense is of the same nature of the instant offense and shows the defendant has a prior offense history (G-3e and [N.J.S.A.] 2C:43-12e9). The disposition on such has had little impact on her recent behavior, in that, she is now before the Superior Court on one count of Theft by Unlawful Taking. It also appears to indicate that the defendant's attitude is not amenable to change or the counseling process (G-1e). The defendant has not paid more than $50.00 toward her Court ordered obligation, having had at this point in time, nearly nine months to make payments. A further example of her poor attitude is that during the course of the PTI interview, the defendant related that she initially did not see the offense as being harmful and did not really look at it as a crime.
All of this taken together appears to reveal that [defendant's] behavior pattern is too well established (G-1d). She and an accomplice carried out said actions on more than one occasion and, accordingly, the needs and interests of society would not be met by the defendant's PTI enrollment ([N.J.S.A.] 2C:43-12e7).
The Warren County Prosecutor concurred with this recommendation and rejected defendant's application for admission into PTI.
Defendant appealed the rejection of her application to the trial court, which remanded the matter for reconsideration. On that remand, the Criminal Division Manager reaffirmed her recommendation for rejection of defendant's application, and the prosecutor concurred.
On September 24, 2009, the trial court delivered an oral opinion affirming the rejection of defendant's application for admission into PTI, concluding that the prosecutor's decision did not constitute a patent and gross abuse of discretion.
Defendant subsequently entered into a plea bargain under which she agreed to plead guilty and the State agreed to recommend that she be sentenced to probation. The trial court accepted this plea bargain and sentenced defendant to an eighteen-month probationary term. The court also ordered defendant to pay $666.18 in restitution to Kohl's Department Store.
Defendant appeals the denial of her application for admission into PTI. Defendant presents the following arguments:
POINT I
THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENDANT'S PTI APPLICATION WAS PLAIN ERROR REQUIRING A REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION AFFIRMING THE CRIMINAL CASE MANAGER'S DENIAL, IN WHICH THE PROSECUTOR CONCURRED, AND THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER ADMITTING DEFENDANT INTO PTI.
A. OVERVIEW: THE ERRORS.
B. DEFENDANT'S REJECTION MOCKS THE PURPOSE OF PTI.
C. CRITERIA FOR PTI ADMISSION.
D. THE STATE IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE RULE 3:28, GUIDELINE 3 PRESUMPTION AGAINST ADMISSION INTO PTI TO DEFENDANT'S CASE.
E. THE PROSECUTOR'S RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS OF REASONS DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE EACH STATEMENT WAS ONE-SIDED AND FAILED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE DEFENDANT'S POSITIVE QUALITIES.
F. CUMULATIVE ERROR.
Defendant's arguments are clearly without merit and do not warrant extended discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We are satisfied, substantially for the reasons set forth in the Criminal Division Manager's statement of reasons, that the rejection of defendant's application for admission into PTI did not constitute a patent and gross abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
