Title: State v. James T. Brooks

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). On September 23, 1998, Brooks, a resident of Maryland and self-employed bail bondsman and private investigator, was driving his automobile on Route 78 in Union County. A police officer on patrol observed Brooks car traveling approximately ten miles per hour above the posted speed limit. The officer followed Brooks and directed him to pull over. After approaching the vehicle, the officer found an opened, half-full can of beer on the interior console. Brooks was asked to exit the car, and informed the officer that he had another can of beer in the back seat. Another officer arrived and they searched the vehicle, finding a .380 9mm handgun under the floor mat in the back seat. The gun was loaded with a five-round clip. The officers also smelled marijuana and observed a burnt marijuana cigar in the ashtray. Brooks stated that he had smoked the marijuana approximately three weeks earlier. He also explained that he had purchased the gun because of his job and that he rarely carried it. He produced an approved gun application and a sales receipt, asserting that under Maryland law those documents gave him the right to purchase and transport the weapon. He later admitted that he had not stored the gun properly for transport and that he did not have a permit to carry it outside his home. Police arrested Brooks for unlawful possession of a handgun and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. They also issued him a summons for speeding and driving with an open container of alcohol. Brooks applied for admission into Union County s PTI program. In a letter dated January 19, 1999, the PTI program director informed Brooks that his application had been denied. The director cited the serious nature of the charged offenses, possession of a weapon and possession of marijuana, explaining they had the potential for violence. The director also noted Brooks record, and his continual involvement with the criminal justice system. Eight complaints had been filed against Brooks as a juvenile, two of which resulted in probation. In addition, the director cited to two arrests as an adult, one for shoplifting and assault, the other for possession of a weapon and obstructing police. Although both charges were dismissed, the director found them to display a pattern of disregard for the criminal justice system. The prosecutor concurred with the director s determination. Brooks moved before the trial court to compel his admission into the PTI program. The court denied the motion, emphasizing that as a bondsman Brooks, more than anyone else, had to know that carrying the handgun without a permit was wrong. The court also cited Brooks prior contact with the criminal justice system both as a juvenile and as an adult. Brooks entered into a plea agreement under which the prosecutor dropped the drug possession and open-container charges in exchange for Brooks plea of guilty on the handgun count. The other traffic summonses were remanded to the municipal court. The trial court accept the plea and sentenced Brooks to two years probation, imposed a $500 fine, and assessed the usual fees and costs. Brooks appealed the denial of his application to PTI. The Appellate Division upheld the rejection of Brooks application, finding no patent or gross abuse of discretion or consideration of irrelevant factors. The Supreme Court granted Brooks petition for certification. HELD: Officials who implement the PTI process may draw limited inferences from an applicant s criminal history that contains dismissed offenses. The prosecutor s rejection of this PTI application based on Brooks juvenile and adult history, the facts surrounding the present offenses, and other permissible factors, was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion. 1. One purpose of PTI is to augment the options of prosecutors in disposing of criminal matters. Another is to provide applicants with opportunities to avoid prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services or supervision where they can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior. Although there are no explicit per se rules excluding offenders from PTI eligibility, the statute provides that supervisory treatment should ordinarily be limited to persons who have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12a. The judiciary accords enhanced deference to a prosecutor s decision in respect of a PTI application. To succeed in challenging the denial of a PTI application, the defendant must prove clearly and convincingly that the prosecutor s decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion. More specifically, a defendant must show that the prosecutor s decision (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment. (pp. 7-11) 2. Brooks contends that the prosecutor improperly considered his juvenile record. The Court notes that there is no explicit provision in the statute s text precluding a prosecutor s consideration of juvenile records. Moreover, the statute impliedly invites a prosecutor to consider a defendant s juvenile history by permitting consideration of the defendant s record of criminal and penal violations and whether the defendant s crime is part of a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior. Brooks cites to a Law Division decision from 1986 holding that a prosecutor cannot consider an applicant s juvenile offenses when evaluating a PTI application. To the extent that any question remains concerning whether this decision is persuasive authority, the Court expressly overrules it. (pp. 11-15) 3. The Court also rejects Brooks argument that a prosecutor may not consider those aspects of an applicant s juvenile and adult histories that contain dismissed offenses. A prosecutor who takes into account such information as part of an applicant s overall record is acting like a trial court that sentences a defendant whose criminal history includes prior arrests. The Court has held that a sentencing court properly can consider a defendant s prior arrest record, including arrests for offenses that ultimately had been dismissed. There are limits, however, to the use of a defendant s criminal arrest history. Under no circumstances may a court, prosecutor, or PTI director infer guilt in respect of any dismissed charge or count of an indictment. Those aspects of a defendant s history may be reviewed solely from the perspective of whether the arrest or dismissed charge should have deterred the defendant from committing a subsequent offense. (pp. 15-17) 4. The prosecutor did not commit a patent and gross abuse of discretion under the applicable case law. The facts surrounding the gun, drug, and open-container charges formed an adequate basis to support the prosecutor s decision when considered in concert with other relevant factors. (pp. 17-19) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE ALBIN, dissenting, expresses the view that prior unsubstantiated and dismissed charges are without factual support in the record and therefore are not relevant in the PTI decision-making process. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE VERNIERO s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN has filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES T. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. Argued September 24, 2002 Decided November 25, 2002 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Brian L. Zavin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Thomas V. Manahan, Union County Prosecutor, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. The issue in this case is whether Union County s prosecutor abused his discretion by denying defendant entry into that county s pretrial intervention (PTI) program based in part on defendant s juvenile and adult arrest records. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division upholding the prosecutor s determination. We emphasize, however, that courts, prosecutors, and PTI program directors may draw only limited inferences from juvenile or adult criminal histories that contain dismissed offenses. We further observe that some juvenile infractions may be so minor or distant in time that they provide no reasonable basis to support a prosecutor s rejection of PTI in a given case. ADDITIONALLY, YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO EFFECT THE NECESSARY BEHAVIORAL CHANGE AS INDICATED BY YOUR CONTINUAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. ACCORDING TO CRIMINAL RECORDS YOU HAVE SERVED TWO JUVENILE PROBATION TERMS WITH THE UNION COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT. AS A JUVENILE OVER EIGHT COMPLAINTS WERE FILED AGAINST YOU IN SCOTCH PLAINS, FANWOOD, NORTH PLAINFIELD AND WATCHUNG. THE CHARGES INCLUDE MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT, BURGLARY, TRESPASSING, RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AND TRUANCY. AFTER BEING DISCHARGED FROM PROBATION IN 1989 YOU HAD TWO ARRESTS IN 1992. IN NORTH PLAINFIELD YOU WERE ARRESTED FOR SHOPLIFTING AND ASSAULT, AND IN PLAINFIELD YOU WERE ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND OBSTRUCTING POLICE. ALTHOUGH BOTH OF THESE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED THEY DISPLAY A PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND INDICATE THAT PTI COUNSELING WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE IN DETERRING YOU FROM FURTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. DESPITE YOUR GAINFUL SELF-EMPLOYMENT, COMPLIANCE WITH PTI CONDITIONS, AND NUMEROUS LETTERS PRAISING YOUR PROFESSIONALISM, SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTER, THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE CHARGES COUPLED WITH YOUR CONTINUAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BAR YOU FROM PTI PARTICIPATION. IF SERVING TWO TERMS OF JUVENILE PROBATION AND NUMEROUS ENCOUNTERS WITH THE POLICE DO NOT DETER YOU FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT PTI WILL. THE ABOVE FACTORS WARRANT YOUR REJECTION FROM THE PTI PROGRAM. The prosecutor concurred with the director s determination. Defendant moved before the trial court to compel his admission into the PTI program. The court denied that motion. It emphasized that as a bondsman defendant likely had posted numerous bonds for persons carrying handguns without permits and thus more than anyone else . . . [defendant] knew [that his gun offense] was wrong, and he disregarded that. The court also cited defendant s prior contact with the criminal justice system both as a juvenile and as an adult. As reflected in the director s letter, defendant s juvenile history includes five arrests between 1987 and 1988 on assorted charges (e.g., receiving stolen property, truancy, burglary, and theft), which prosecutors ultimately had dismissed. Two additional arrests, however, had led to two separate probationary terms in 1987. The first probationary term stemmed from charges of eluding, possession of a stolen vehicle, and motor vehicle theft. Similarly, defendant received a second term of probation for trespass. Defendant s adult record contains two separate arrests in 1992 on offenses that also had been dismissed. One of the dismissed charges involved possession of a weapon. Defendant entered into a plea agreement under which the prosecutor dropped the drug possession and open-container charges in exchange for defendant s plea of guilty on the handgun count. The speeding summons was remanded to the Berkeley Heights municipal court for disposition. The trial court accepted the plea arrangement and sentenced defendant to two years probation, imposed a $500 fine, and assessed the usual fees and costs. The court also required defendant to remain gainfully employed and to refrain from possessing, using, and distributing drugs. Defendant appealed. (Under the plea agreement, defendant did not waive his right to appeal the denial of PTI.) In an unreported opinion, the Appellate Division upheld the prosecutor s rejection of defendant s application, finding no patent or gross abuse of discretion by the prosecutor or consideration of irrelevant factors. We granted defendant s petition for certification. 171 N.J. 337 (2002). [Id. at 608 (quoting State v. Marzolf, 79 N.J. 167, 185 (1979)).] There are limits, however, to the use of a defendant s criminal arrest history. We stressed in Green, supra, that the sentencing judge shall not infer guilt as to any underlying charge with respect to which the defendant does not admit his guilt. 62 N.J. at 566. We sound the same warning here. Under no circumstances may a court, prosecutor, or PTI director infer guilt in respect of any dismissed charge or count of an indictment contained in an applicant s record. Those aspects of a defendant s history, if considered at all, may be reviewed solely from the perspective of whether the arrest or dismissed charge should have deterred the defendant from committing a subsequent offense. Moreover, a prosecutor s or program director s written rejection of a given application must reflect only a proper consideration of such information. Likewise, some juvenile adjudications may be so minor or distant in time that they provide no reasonable basis on which to reject an otherwise meritorious PTI application. We next turn to defendant s second argument that the prosecutor committed a patent and gross abuse of discretion under the applicable case law. We acknowledge that defendant has presented numerous letters attesting to his good character, and has asserted other facts in mitigation as part of his application. Those facts, however, cannot detract from the nature of his acts or from the fact that, as observed by the trial court, defendant appreciated the wrongful nature of his conduct and simply disregarded it. We are satisfied that such conduct bears directly on defendant s amenability to rehabilitation, a central inquiry under the statute. Nwobu, supra, 139 N.J. at 255. In State v. Warriner, a case somewhat similar to this one, the Appellate Division upheld a prosecutor s decision to deny PTI to a defendant arrested for carrying an illegal firearm. 322 N.J. Super. 401 (1999). The program director s report highlighted the fact that the defendant, an avid gun collector, knew that his weapon was illegal yet tried to hide it. Id. at 409. The director s report also noted that the weapon was involved in an underlying domestic violence incident. Ibid. Conversely, the report indicated that the defendant had no prior convictions, was gainfully employed, and had two children. Ibid. Notwithstanding those mitigating factors, the Appellate Division upheld the prosecutor s decision to deny PTI. Id. at 408. We reason similarly. The facts surrounding the gun, drug, and open-container charges formed an adequate basis to support the prosecutor s decision when considered in concert with other relevant factors found under the statute and Guidelines. In that respect, we note that in evaluating an application a prosecutor or PTI director is not limited to the offenses formally contained in a plea agreement. In that connection, those officials may look beyond the plea to the actual facts when they are not in dispute, as it is the conduct not the charge [that] governs. State v. Imbriani, 280 N.J. Super. 304, 316 (Law Div. 1994), aff d, 291 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 1996). CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE VERNIERO s opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate dissenting opinion. JUSTICE LONG did not participate. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES T. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. ALBIN, J., dissenting. This appeal raises the question whether, in the context of a defendant s application for enrollment into a pretrial intervention program (PTI), the PTI director, prosecutor, and reviewing trial judge may consider a defendant s prior arrests on unsubstantiated and dismissed charges. My colleagues have concluded that prior unsubstantiated and dismissed charges have relevance in the PTI decision-making process. I respectfully disagree. A charge that has no factual support in the record is entitled to no weight in determining an applicant s amenability to rehabilitation. In this case, the officials reviewing Brooks application for the PTI program drew inferences of guilt from dismissed charges, without determining whether there was any validity to the charges. The use of bare arrests to draw inferences of guilt makes hollow the presumption of innocence and denied Brooks his right to fundamental fairness. On September 23, 1998, after a motor vehicle stop for speeding in Berkley Heights, James Brooks, then age twenty-four, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and driving with an open container of alcohol. Brooks, a self-employed bail bondsman and private investigator living in Maryland, had been visiting his mother in New Jersey at the time of the stop. A search of his car revealed a loaded .380 9mm handgun under the floor mat in the back seat, an open bottle of beer, and a fraction of a gram of burnt marijuana in an ashtray. Brooks applied for admission into the Union County PTI program. The PTI director rejected Brooks application because of the serious nature of the charges coupled with [his] continual involvement with the criminal justice system. In her rejection letter, the director listed Brooks numerous encounters with the police, which, in her estimation, made him unsuitable for PTI. The director recounted that on two occasions in 1987, Brooks, then age thirteen and fourteen, was charged with juvenile offenses, adjudicated delinquent, and ordered to serve two one-year probationary terms. The director also detailed Brooks six other arrests as a juvenile in 1987 and 1988 and his two arrests as an eighteen and nineteen-year-old adult in 1992, all of which resulted in dismissed charges. As far as can be discerned from the record, the director did nothing to verify whether there was any truth to the dismissed charges. Nor does the record suggest that Brooks was asked to respond to any questions during his PTI interview concerning the dismissed charges. Nevertheless, without any facts substantiating the validity of the two adult charges, the director found: Although both of these charges were dismissed they display a pattern of disregard for the criminal justice system, and indicate that PTI counseling would be ineffective in deterring you from further criminal activity. (Emphasis added). The PTI director did not distinguish the juvenile adjudications, which were arguably remote in time, from the dismissed charges in determining that Brooks was unsuitable for a diversionary rehabilitation program. The dismissed charges were paraded throughout four of the nine pages of the rejection letter, with repeated commentaries from the director that encounters with police had not deterred Brooks from criminal activity and that the encounters display[ed] a pattern of disregard for the criminal justice system. (Emphasis added). Similarly, after Brooks appealed his PTI rejection to the Superior Court, Law Division, the assistant prosecutor representing the State highlighted the unsubstantiated charges as a basis for denying Brooks enrollment into the PTI program. Although the 1992 adult charges against Brooks were dismissed and Brooks had represented at the PTI appeal hearing that he had been wrongly charged, the assistant prosecutor argued to the trial court: PTI is to rehabilitate. He already had a probationary period and already had prior contacts with . . . the system as an adult, . . . and Mr. Brooks is still engaging in these types of activities[.] . . . Mr. Brooks is not an appropriate candidate for PTI. The assistant prosecutor did not attempt to supply any factual predicate to support the conclusion that Brooks committed any of the underlying offenses on the dismissed charges. As with the PTI director, the assistant prosecutor simply inferred that Brooks must have been guilty of some wrongdoing because he had been arrested. Moreover, in its brief to the Appellate Division, the State cited the dismissed juvenile and adult charges as representing part of a pattern of disregard for the criminal justice system. In its brief to this Court, the State contends that bare arrests satisfied the following criteria: [t]he extent to which the applicant s crime constitutes part of a continuing pattern of antisocial behavior, [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e(8),] the extent to which [the applicant] may present a substantial danger to others, [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e(9),] the applicant s history of physical violence toward others, [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e(12),] and any involvement of the applicant with organized crime [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e(13)]. In this sense, the State has elevated arrests premised on unsubstantiated charges to the functional equivalent of convictions. The dismissed juvenile and adult charges were also given weight by the trial court in affirming Brooks rejection from PTI. The trial court noted: The State made one point which is true. [Brooks] is not a person with no contact to the system ever. Some of the contact was in 87, when he was a kid, through 88, and then new contact when he was an adult in 92/ 93 - 92 twice. The court did not distinguish between Brooks juvenile adjudications and his unsubstantiated juvenile and adult charges. The trial court continued: In weighing this, . . . I can t say the State and [PTI] director abused her [sic] discretion in evaluating adjudicating this issue. Truthfully said, I think the State s right and the director s right in saying no to him at this point in time. The record is clear that at every stage of the PTI process, inferences of guilt were drawn from bare arrests by the PTI director, the assistant prosecutor, and the trial court. [62 N.J. at 571 (emphasis added).] The concerns of a PTI reviewing court are similar to those of a sentencing court. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e and Rule 3:28, Guideline 3, set forth a number of factors to be weighed in determining whether a defendant is a suitable candidate for entry into a PTI program. The factors cited in the statute and rule were not intended to be exhaustive lists of all relevant considerations to be weighed in the PTI review process. The PTI director, prosecutor, and reviewing court, no less than a sentencing court, must also take account of the whole person. Moreover, in doing so, it is clear that the rule in Green prohibiting the use of an unsubstantiated charge to infer guilt must apply equally to the PTI process. 1 --------------- FOOTNOTES --------------- NO. A-69 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES T. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED November 25, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Verniero CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY Justice Albin