Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1403-15T1
02-03-2017
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JASSMICK YOUNGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alicia Hubbard, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Haas and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 14-08-1344. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alicia Hubbard, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Jassmick Younger appeals from the October 22, 2015 order confirming the prosecutor's denial of her application for entry into the pre-trial intervention (PTI) program. Because we agree with the trial court that defendant has not established that the prosecutor's decision to deny PTI was a patent and gross abuse of her discretionary authority, we affirm.
While being treated in a hospital, defendant became combative. When a hospital security officer attempted to assist in restraining her, she struck him in the face and bit his thumb. The officer sustained nerve damage to his thumb, requiring surgery, and a cut on his face.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with aggravated assault, a second-degree offense. After she entered a plea to a reduced charge of third-degree aggravated assault, defendant applied for admission into the PTI program. In rejecting the application, the prosecutor advised that defendant was charged "with a second degree offense of a violent and assaultive nature. . . . [Her] criminal history, both as a juvenile and an adult, and her long standing history of drug abuse indicate that she is not a suitable candidate for the Program." Defendant appealed the decision to the trial court.
In considering defendant's appeal, the trial judge "reviewed the facts and the circumstances of the case, as well as the submission of the parties and the reasons set forth by the State for rejecting defendant's application." The judge found that the State had "provided sufficient reasons in support of the determination and review[ed] and relied on all relevant factors." As a result, defendant had failed to demonstrate that the State's determination to deny entry into PTI was a patent and gross abuse of discretion.
In this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding the State's denial of her application for PTI was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm.
Our scope of review of a prosecutor's decision to deny admission to PTI is "severely limited." State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003) (citations omitted). We afford the prosecutor's decision great deference. See State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582 (1996). A trial judge can only overturn a prosecutor's decision to deny PTI upon finding a patent and gross abuse of discretion. State v. Kraft, 265 N.J. Super. 106, 112-13 (App. Div. 1993) (citations omitted).
Our review of a PTI application exists "to check only the most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness." State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246 (1995) (quoting Kraft, supra, 265 N.J. at 111). In short, it is expected that a prosecutor's decision to reject a PTI applicant "will rarely be overturned." Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 585 (citing State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 380 n.10 (1977)). Absent evidence to the contrary, a reviewing court must assume that "the prosecutor's office has considered all relevant factors in reaching the PTI decision." Nwobu, supra, 139 N.J. at 249 (citing State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 509 (1981)).
Despite defendant's contentions, we are satisfied the trial judge conducted the proper review of the prosecutor's decision to deny defendant entrance into the PTI program. In his review, the judge found the State had provided sufficient reasons in support of its determination and had reviewed and relied upon all of the required factors under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e).
Here, the prosecutorial decision has not "gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention." Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 582-83 (citation omitted). Rather, the trial judge applied the appropriate deferential standard of review to reach a sound decision. Defendant has not met her burden of proving the prosecutor's decision was a patent abuse of discretion.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION