SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1147-18T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RASHANAH L. CAMPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted October 28, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 17-11-1843.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Alison S. Perrone, First Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief 

Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Cheryl L. Hammel, 

Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 12, 2019
2

A-1147-18T2

Defendant Rashanah L. Camper appeals the trial court's April 11, 2018 

denial of her application for pretrial intervention ("PTI"), which had been 

opposed by the Ocean County prosecutor. 

Following a motor vehicle stop in Ocean County, defendant was found in 

possession of numerous controlled dangerous substances. She was thereafter 

charged in Ocean County Indictment No. 17-11-1843 with eight counts of 

various drug offenses. While these charges were pending, she was arrested and 

charged in Atlantic County and Burlington County on other unrelated charges. 

Defendant applied for PTI in Ocean County. The program director 

rejected her application. Defendant sought the trial court's review of the 

rejection. The prosecutor's office opposed her request. The court upheld the 

PTI denial. Defendant thereafter entered into a conditional guilty plea to count 

one of the indictment charging her with third-degree simple possession of CDS. 

She was sentenced to probation and preserved her right to bring the present 

appeal.

During oral argument on the PTI motion, the prosecutor highlighted to the 

court the pending charges against defendant in Atlantic and Burlington Counties 

as negative factors weighing against her admission to PTI in the Ocean County 

case. The prosecutor acknowledged that, based on the information she had, the 
3

A-1147-18T2

Burlington County charges were "likely to be dismissed." However, the 

prosecutor stressed that the Atlantic County charges, which entailed two cases, 

were "likely to go forward," and that they included a serious charge of seconddegree aggravated assault.

As set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 to -22, and as implemented in our 

criminal courts under Rule 3:28, admission into PTI requires a positive 

recommendation from the program director and also the consent of the 

prosecutor. State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246 (1995). The prosecutor's 

assessment is to be guided by seventeen factors enumerated in the PTI statute. 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(1)-(17). For suitable defendants who are selected for 

admission, "PTI is a diversionary program specifically designed to avoid a trial 

and the stigma accompanying a verdict of guilty to any criminal offense." State 

v. Bell, 217 N.J. 336, 347 (2014).

Here, in the trial court's oral decision addressing the PTI factors, the court 

found pertinent the pending charges against defendant in Atlantic and 

Burlington Counties. The court noted those charges arose while defendant was 

on monitoring in the present case. The court's reference to the pending charges 

was not merely incidental. Taking those new arrests into account, and coupling 
4

A-1147-18T2

them with defendant's prior history, the court concluded the State's denial of PTI 

was justified.

As a general matter, courts allow prosecutors wide latitude "in deciding 

whom to divert into the PTI program and whom to prosecute through a 

traditional trial." State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003). The scope of judicial 

review of a prosecutor's objection to a defendant's admission into PTI is severely 

limited. Ibid.; see also Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 246; State v. Hermann, 80 N.J. 122, 

128 (1979). A defendant has a "clear and convincing" burden to show a "patent 

and gross abuse" of a prosecutor's discretion in denying PTI. State v. K.S., 220 

N.J. 190, 199-200 (2015).

Despite these general principles of deference, an important caveat from 

the Supreme Court's opinion in K.S. applies to the present appeal. The Court 

instructed that, in the absence of "undisputed facts of record or facts found at a 

hearing," other charges against a PTI applicant that have been dismissed "may 

not be considered for any purpose." Id. at 199. The Court reasoned that the 

policy of "deterrence is directed at persons who have committed wrongful 

acts[,]" and the "sole fact" of an unproven and dismissed charge should not enter 

into the PTI calculus. Ibid.
5

A-1147-18T2

The logic of K.S. extends to the present case. Although defendant's

charges in Burlington and Atlantic County had not been dismissed as of the time 

she applied for PTI in Ocean County, they also were not yet proven. In fact, as 

the prosecutor noted, it was expected the Burlington charges were going to be 

dismissed. Defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence concerning 

those unrelated charges, absent independent proof the offenses were committed. 

There was no such independent proof tendered to the trial court here. 

We accordingly vacate the trial court's denial of defendant's PTI appeal, 

and remand the matter for reconsideration. At that proceeding, the court should 

ignore the charges in Atlantic and Burlington Counties unless they have resulted 

in a guilty plea or conviction. 

We intimate no views on the outcome of the case, and whether the other 

relevant factors nevertheless support the PTI denial. Defendant may withdraw 

her conditional guilty plea in this Ocean County case if, on remand, her PTI 

application is granted.

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.