Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0217-12T1
03-03-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS ALEXIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Rochelle Watson, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). Geoffrey D. Soriano, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (James L. McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 11-10-0666.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Rochelle Watson, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
Geoffrey D. Soriano, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (James L. McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Thomas Alexis was indicted by a Somerset County Grand Jury on one count of third degree conspiracy to commit identity theft, fraudulent use of a credit card, and theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17a(4), N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6h, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4a, and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, eight counts of third degree identity theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17a(4), eight counts of third degree fraudulent use of a credit card, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6h, and one count of third degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4a. He filed a timely application for admission into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI), which was rejected by the Somerset vicinage PTI director and the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office.
As provided by Rule 3:28(h), defendant appealed this rejection to the trial court. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Robert R. Reed found the Prosecutor had articulated "legally sufficient and appropriate reasons" for rejecting defendant's application to be admitted into PTI, specifically, the grounds identified by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e(1), (2), (7), (9), (14), (15), and (16), as well as the policy reasons listed in Guidelines 1(b) and (e) under Rule 3:28. Judge Reed expanded on the legal basis for his decision in a memorandum of opinion accompanying his order denying defendant's appeal.
Defendant thereafter entered into a plea agreement with the State through which he pled guilty to all of the counts listed in the indictment. After merging the appropriate counts, the court sentenced defendant to a three-year term of probation subject to serving 180 days in the county jail, ninety of which the court suspended, perform twenty-five hours of community service, testify truthfully and completely as a witness for the State in the trial against his codefendant, and pay restitution to the victims of his crimes in the amount of $29,286.54.
As defendant described under oath at his plea hearing, he used his position of trust as branch manager of a large national bank to access customers' financial information and steal their identities for the purpose of "obtaining merchandise at Best Buy." Defendant's activities included working with another person who assumed the customer's identity to procure a Best Buy credit card. We note these crimes are similar to events recently reported by the news media concerning the security of consumers' personal credit information and the use of credit cards in certain department stores that also operate on a regional or nationwide scale.
As authorized by Rule 3:28(g), defendant now appeals from the order of the trial court raising the following argument.
POINT ONE
THE PROSECUTOR'S DECISION TO REJECT DEFENDANT'S PTI APPLICATION CONSTITUTES A PATENT AND GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Defendant's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Reed in his memorandum of opinion dated February 8, 2012.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION