SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4812-17T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARC D. SCHULTZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Argued April 9, 2019 – Decided September 11, 2019

Before Judges Rothstadt and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 17-08-

1151.

Kathleen Mary Theurer argued the cause for appellant.

William P. Miller, Special Deputy Attorney General/

Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for 

respondent (Dennis Calo, Acting Bergen County 

Prosecutor, attorney; William P. Miller, of counsel; 

Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-4812-17T1

Defendant Marc D. Schultz appeals from the Law Division's judgment of 

conviction (JOC) that it entered after defendant pled guilty to one count of 

second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1). At 

sentencing, the trial court found that the mitigating factors outweighed any 

aggravating factors and sentenced defendant to two years' probation as 

permitted by an earlier order entered under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, which waived 

the mandatory minimum period to which defendant was exposed under the 

Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). On appeal, defendant challenges a 

December 6, 2017 order rejecting his appeal from the prosecutor's denial of his 

admission to the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12; 

R. 3:28.1 In his appeal, defendant argues the prosecutor's rejection of his 

application "was a patent and gross abuse of discretion due to its reliance upon

irrelevant and inappropriate factors, inaccurate information and [a] 

misapplication of [the] law." We disagree and affirm.

Defendant, a resident of Indiana, pled guilty to the one charge of 

possession of a weapon after his arrest by Mahwah police on February 22, 

 

1

 Rule 3:28 contained guidelines to assist in a determination of whether a 

defendant was amenable to PTI. The Rule was repealed effective July 1, 2018. 

However, "many of [the Guidelines'] prescriptions -- with significant 

variations -- are [now] contained in Rules 3:28-1 to -10." State v. Johnson, 

238 N.J. 119, 128 (2019).
3

A-4812-17T1

2017, when an officer stopped defendant and his two passengers for a traffic 

violation. In response to questioning by the officer, defendant disclosed that 

he had a handgun in his possession. At the time, defendant also advised the 

officer that he held a concealed carry permit from Indiana. The police 

retrieved defendant's loaded gun and hollow-point bullets from his vehicle's 

glovebox. Defendant also disclosed that there was marijuana in the car and 

police recovered a small amount of the controlled substance together with 

paraphernalia related to its use. 

Defendant was arrested and later charged in an indictment with the

second-degree weapons offense and fourth-degree possession of prohibited 

ammunition, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(1) and (2). He was also charged in a 

summons complaint with two disorderly persons offenses related to his 

possession of marijuana and paraphernalia under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4) and 

N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2.

After his arrest, defendant applied for entry into PTI. On October 18, 

2017, the PTI director rejected defendant's application, citing to the fact that 

defendant was an out-of-state resident and that a required home inspection

could not be conducted due to his not residing in New Jersey. The director 

concluded that in defendant's case the "early rehabilitative services and the
4

A-4812-17T1

supervision offered by the PTI program would not best serve the interest of the 

victim and/or the State of New Jersey." 

Defendant immediately filed a motion with the Law Division to reverse

the director's determination. He did so prior to any input from the County 

Prosecutor.

On November 6, 2017, the Bergen County Prosecutor also rejected 

defendant's application. In his letter stating his reasons, the prosecutor cited to 

what he found were the applicable statutory factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 

2C:43-12(e) and the Guidelines under Rule 3:28. 

The prosecutor cited to "the nature of the offense" and "the facts of the 

case," N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(1) and (2), and concluded that PTI was not 

appropriate because defendant was charged with a second-degree offense and 

possession of marijuana. Citing to 18 U.S.C. § 926A,2 he also noted that the 

manner in which defendant transported his handgun violated federal law. The 

prosecutor also considered under Guideline 3(b) that defendant was an out-ofstate resident and, under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(9), that at the time of his arrest, 

 

2

 The federal statute permits a person to transport a firearm in the trunk of a 

vehicle only "for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully 

possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully 

possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is 

unloaded." § 926A.
5

A-4812-17T1

defendant had a prior criminal record consisting of out-of-state convictions for 

selling cocaine in 19893and in 2003 for possession of marijuana. Finally, the 

prosecutor considered N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(14), whether the value of 

supervisory treatment outweighed "the public need for prosecution," and (17), 

"[w]hether . . . the harm done to society by abandoning criminal prosecution 

would outweigh the benefits to society from channeling [defendant] into a

supervisory program," and concluded "society would be harmed" if defendant

was not prosecuted. 

On December 4, 2017, Judge Margaret M. Foti considered the parties' 

oral arguments. On December 6, 2017, she issued an order denying 

defendant's appeal from the denial of his admission to PTI. The judge set forth 

her reasons on the same date in a seven-page written decision. The judge 

found that defendant did "not demonstrate[] that the prosecutor failed to 

consider all relevant factors before making [his] decision." She concluded that 

defendant's contentions about his background, including that "he is a 52-yearold family man and business owner who [is] willing to report in person as 

 

3

 At the December 4, 2017 oral argument on defendant's appeal from the 

rejection of his application, the prosecutor conceded that the letter inaccurately 

stated the prior conviction and clarified that it was for a "misdemeanor" and 

not a "felony." 
6

A-4812-17T1

required by PTI supervision [were] not enough to convince [the judge] that 

[the prosecutor's] decision was based on a patent and gross abuse of 

discretion." 

In response to the prosecutor's subsequent motion, on January 16, 2018, 

Judge Foti entered the order waiving the mandatory minimum defendant would 

be exposed to for his weapons offense under the Graves Act, allowing him to 

be sentenced to a period of probation. Defendant pled guilty the same day to 

the one charge and, on June 1, 2018, another judge sentenced defendant and 

stayed imposition of probation pending appeal. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, in support of his contention that the prosecutor's rejection of 

his application was a patent and gross abuse of discretion, defendant contends 

that the challenged decision failed to consider a 2014 memorandum from the 

Attorney General setting forth a "clarification" to an earlier Attorney General 

Directive. The memorandum addressed the prosecution of matters involving 

an out-of-state resident's transport of a weapon while in New Jersey and

applied to situations where a Graves Act offense is committed in New Jersey 

based on conduct that would be lawful in the offender's home-state and the 

"out-of-state visitor[ did] not realize that [his or her] authority to carry a 

weapon in their home state [did] not extend into New Jersey." In the 
7

A-4812-17T1

memorandum, the Attorney General directed that "in the absence of casespecific aggravating circumstances, these defendants should not be sentenced 

to incarceration," and instead prosecutors should pursue PTI, or if "PTI is not 

appropriate," they should make "an initial plea offer" of "non-custodial" 

probation. 

The memorandum also directed that when a prosecutor pursues PTI for a 

non-resident who is licensed to carry a weapon in his or her home state, certain 

unique factors should be considered along with the statutory factors applicable 

to PTI admission. Those unique factors include whether the manner of 

possession minimize the risk of harm to others, such as keeping the weapon in 

the trunk of the car as compared to "the passenger cabin of a vehicle." Other 

factors include: (1) whether the incident "was [i]solated and [a]berrational," 

and "[d]efendant is otherwise a law-abiding person," as demonstrated by 

whether defendant was found to be committing a separate offense; (2) whether

defendant disclosed the firearm to police "on his or her own initiative;" and,

(3) whether there existed "[c]ircumstances [c]oncerning [c]onfusion of New 

Jersey and Other-State [l]aw."

According to defendant, the prosecutor's rejection of his application 

because he was a non-resident was inconsistent with the memorandum, even 
8

A-4812-17T1

though as he concedes, "traditionally out of State residents are regularly denied 

admission to the [PTI] program." Moreover, defendant argues the prosecutor's 

reliance on federal law was misplaced and his reliance upon the second-degree 

nature of the weapons offense was inconsistent with the memorandum that

contemplated the diversion of defendants charged with the same offense to 

PTI. Finally, defendant contends that contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, he 

was not convicted of distribution of cocaine in 1989. We find no merit to 

defendant's contentions.

"PTI is a 'diversionary program through which certain offenders are able 

to avoid criminal prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services 

expected to deter future criminal behavior.'" Johnson, 238 N.J at 127 (quoting 

State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621 (2015)). "PTI programs are 'governed 

simultaneously by the Rule and the statute which "generally mirror[ ]" each 

other.'" Roseman, 221 N.J. at 621 (quoting State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582

(1996)). 

At the time of defendant's application for PTI, "[t]he assessment of a 

defendant's suitability for PTI [was] conducted under the Guidelines for PTI 

provided in Rule 3:28, along with consideration of factors listed in N.J.S.A. 

2C:43-12(e)." Johnson, 238 N.J at 128 (quoting Roseman, 221 N.J. at 621). 
9

A-4812-17T1

Under the Rule and statute, "acceptance into PTI [was] dependent upon an 

initial recommendation by the Criminal Division Manager and consent of the 

prosecutor." Roseman, 221 N.J. at 621. 

A court's review of a prosecutor's rejection of a PTI application is 

"'severely limited[,]' and interference by reviewing courts is reserved for those 

cases where needed 'to check [] the "most egregious examples of injustice and 

unfairness."'" State v. Lee, 437 N.J. Super. 555, 563 (App. Div. 2014)

(alterations in original) (quoting State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003)). 

"[O]n appeal, [we] review[] PTI decisions with 'enhanced deference.'" Ibid.

We afford prosecutors a "great deal of deference" in deciding whether to admit 

defendants to PTI, because the decision for admission to "PTI is essentially an 

extension of the charging decision, therefore the decision to grant or deny PTI

is a 'quintessentially prosecutorial function.'" Johnson, 238 N.J at 128 

(quoting Roseman, 221 N.J. at 624).

"A court reviewing a prosecutor's decision to deny PTI may overturn 

that decision only if the defendant 'clearly and convincingly' establishes the 

decision was a 'patent and gross abuse of discretion.'" Johnson, 238 N.J. at 

128-29 (quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 583). "Where a defendant can make that 

showing, a trial court may admit a defendant, by order, into PTI over the 
10 A-4812-17T1

prosecutor's objection." Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625. "In cases concerning legal 

error by the prosecutor, . . . [which] raise issues akin to questions of law, . . . a 

remand to the prosecutor may be appropriate so she or he may rightly 

reconsider the application." Johnson, 238 N.J. at 129 (citation omitted).

In reaching their decisions, prosecutors are tasked with making 

individualized assessments of each defendant, particularly his or her 

"amenability to correction" and likely "responsiveness to rehabilitation." Id. at 

127-28 (quoting State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507, 520 (2008)). Prosecutors are 

granted "wide latitude in deciding whom to divert into the PTI program and 

whom to prosecute through a traditional trial." Negran, 178 N.J. at 82.

A prosecutor must evaluate PTI applications by considering the factors 

defined by statute and court rule and conduct an "individualized assessment" 

of the applicant. The Supreme Court explained the evaluation process as 

follows:

The assessment of a defendant's suitability for PTI 

must be conducted under the Guidelines for PTI 

provided in Rule 3:28, along with consideration of 

factors listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e). These factors 

include "the details of the case, defendant's motives, 

age, past criminal record, standing in the community, 

and employment performance[.]" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 

520; see N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e). Additionally, a PTI 

determination requires that the prosecutor make an 

individualized assessment of the defendant 
11 A-4812-17T1

considering his or her "'amenability to correction' and 

potential 'responsiveness to rehabilitation.'" Watkins, 

193 N.J. at 520 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(b)).

[Roseman, 221 N.J. at 621-22.]

However, in cases involving first- or second-degree offenses, there is a 

presumption against admission. See R. 3:28 Guideline 3(i)(3); see also

Johnson, 238 N.J. at 131 ("hold[ing] the presumption against PTI for first- and 

second-degree offenders . . . no longer" applicable to certain drug offenses);

Watkins, 193 N.J. at 523. The presumption may be overcome only upon a 

defendant demonstrating "compelling reasons justifying the applicant's 

admission and establishing that a decision against enrollment would be 

arbitrary and unreasonable." R. 3:28 Guideline 3(i)(4); see also Johnson, 238 

N.J. at 128.

A patent and gross abuse of discretion occurs when

a prosecutorial veto (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 judgement

[sic]. In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise 

to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be 

shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will 

clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI].

[Johnson, 238 N.J. at 129 (quoting Roseman, 221 N.J.

at 625).]
12 A-4812-17T1

Applying these principles, we conclude defendant failed to demonstrate

that his rejection from PTI was the result of a patent or gross abuse of 

discretion. Thus, there is no basis to disturb the trial court's decision 

sustaining the prosecutor's denial. Although defendant certainly has a number 

of mitigating factors in his favor, the reasons for the prosecutor's denial were 

premised on consideration of relevant factors, which weighed against his 

admission. Defendant failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the 

prosecutor's decision went so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by 

PTI that fundamental fairness and justice required judicial intervention.

We find defendant's arguments to the contrary are without sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Suffice it to 

say, "a court's scrutiny of a prosecutor's denial of consent is normally limited 

to the reasons given by the prosecutor for his [or her] action[,]" State v. Kraft, 

265 N.J. Super. 106, 112 (App. Div. 1993), and "[a]bsent evidence to the 

contrary, it is [to be] presumed that the prosecutor considered all relevant 

factors before rendering a decision." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting 

State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 509 (1981)). We offer only the following 

additional comments.
13 A-4812-17T1

Here, the prosecutor appropriately referred to the undisputed facts that 

were relevant to the applicable PTI factors, and his statement of reasons 

clearly evidences a substantive analysis of valid considerations. Those

considerations included defendant being simultaneously found in possession of 

marijuana, his gun being loaded with hollow-point bullets and not stored in the 

vehicle's trunk,4 his not having demonstrated any confusion over not being

allowed to carry his gun in New Jersey, and his prior criminal record, even 

limited to the 2003 misdemeanor conviction. These factors clearly 

distinguished defendant from the type of defendant contemplated by the 

Attorney General Guidelines.

While reasonable minds might differ as to whether defendant is a 

suitable candidate for admission into the program, the court's role when 

considering an appeal of this sort is "limited" and the "'[court] does not have 

the authority . . . to substitute [its own] discretion for that of the 

prosecutor'. . . . even where the prosecutor's decision is one which the . . . 

 

4

 Defendant "had no federally-protected right under 18 U.S.C.[] § 926A to 

transport his loaded revolver[,]" In re Two Seized Firearms, 127 N.J. 84, 

91(1992). Nor did he have a right under 18 U.S.C. § 926A to carry a handgun 

between Indiana and New Jersey, because he could not lawfully carry the gun

in New Jersey. See State v. Waters, 439 N.J. Super. 215, 231 (App. Div. 

2015).
14 A-4812-17T1

court disagrees with or finds to be harsh." Kraft, 265 N.J. Super. at 112.

(alterations in original) (citation omitted).

Affirmed.