RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0695-19

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAKERA S. LOWMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Submitted on March 14, 2022 – Decided March 21, 2022

Before Judges Sabatino and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Indictment No. 15-04-0297.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Morgan A. Birck, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).

James O. Tansey, First Assistant Prosecutor of Union 

County, attorney for respondent (Joseph M. Nielsen, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0695-19

Defendant Shakera S. Lowman appeals from an August 8, 2019 judgment 

of conviction for endangering the welfare of a child by caretaker, N.J.S.A. 

2C:24:4(a), after her termination from a Pretrial Intervention (PTI) program. 

Defendant's appeal focuses on a January 10, 2019 order denying her motion for 

reinstatement to PTI. We affirm. 

Defendant was arrested in 2014 after being found drunk and asleep at the 

wheel with two minor children in the back seat of her car. Defendant imbibed 

in excessive amounts of alcohol after learning her cousin, with whom defendant 

lived, had been murdered. When a police officer approached defendant's car, he 

discovered the children were not wearing seat belts and found an open bottle of 

alcohol in the center console cupholder. After the officer shouted and knocked 

on the car window to wake defendant, the officer smelled alcohol on her breath. 

Defendant was unable to successfully perform the field sobriety tests 

administered by the officer. 

Defendant was arrested and taken to police headquarters. At the police 

station, defendant refused to cooperate, cursed at the officers, and struck one 

officer with her elbow. 

Defendant was indicted on two counts of second-degree endangering the 

welfare of a child by a caretaker, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) and one count of fourth-
3

A-0695-19

degree aggravated assault on a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5). After 

pleading guilty to the child endangerment charges and driving while intoxicated, 

she was admitted into a PTI program for a three-year period. In conjunction 

with her admission to PTI, defendant agreed to the following: notifying her 

probation officer of any address change; reporting to her probation officer as 

scheduled; maintaining employment; performing sixty hours of community 

service; paying a $125 fine; and cooperating in any recommended testing, 

treatment, or counseling. Defendant also acknowledged failure to successfully 

complete the PTI requirements would result in the State seeking a three-year 

term of imprisonment on the original charges. 

Defendant failed to meet the PTI program's requirements for reporting to 

probation, attending scheduled appointments, performing community service, 

and paying all fines. Defendant's probation officer issued a violation notice and 

a termination hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2017. Because defendant 

failed to appear at the hearing, she was terminated from the PTI program, and 

the judge issued a bench warrant. 

Defendant attempted to file a motion for reinstatement to PTI in June 

2017. However, the application was dismissed based on defendant's failure to 
4

A-0695-19

submit a supporting brief. Defendant refiled a motion for reinstatement to PTI 

in March 2018. 

The motion judge took testimony over three non-consecutive days 

between August and November 2018. Defendant, her probation officer, and an

addiction counselor who participated in defendant's substance abuse evaluation 

testified at the hearing. While the reinstatement motion was pending, the State 

offered defendant an opportunity to re-plead to reduced charges of child abuse 

and neglect that would have resulted in a non-custodial probationary sentence. 

Defendant declined the plea offer.

Defendant's probation officer provided the following testimony during the 

motion hearings. According to the probation officer, defendant failed to report 

to scheduled meetings on five occasions in 2016, failed to complete any of her 

community service hours, and failed to pay the $125 fine. Defendant was placed 

into a comprehensive enforcement program to ensure her compliance with the 

PTI requirements, but she was not successful in the program. Defendant 

received a warning letter from the probation officer about possible termination 

from PTI. Despite the warning letter, defendant did not comply with her PTI 

requirements. 
5

A-0695-19

The probation officer told the judge all written notices, including the 

violation notice, were sent to a Union Township address defendant provided. 

However, the notice scheduling the PTI termination hearing sent to that address 

came back as undeliverable. Defendant told the probation officer she lived at 

two different addresses: her Union Township address and her mother's address. 

Defendant mentioned she might move to Jersey City but never provided an 

updated address to her probation officer. When the probation officer telephoned 

defendant to discuss termination of PTI, defendant cursed, used abusive 

language, and abruptly terminated the conversations.

A substance abuse counselor testified regarding defendant's substance 

abuse evaluation. While defendant tested negative for drugs and alcohol, the 

counselor recommended defendant attend a preventive intervention program to 

prevent any relapse. Defendant declined to participate the recommended 

program.

Defendant also testified. She explained her interactions with the 

probation officer, including updating her mailing address. According to 

defendant, she did not receive a hearing notice regarding termination of PTI. 

Defendant also believed a negative test as part of a substance abuse evaluation 

would not require her participation in any preventative intervention education 
6

A-0695-19

program. While defendant admitted not completing any community service 

hours, she claimed she was turned away from the community service location 

and reported the situation to her probation officer. Defendant also conceded she 

was rude to her probation officer and failed to pay the court ordered fine. 

After considering the testimony of the witnesses, reviewing the exhibits 

and briefs submitted, and hearing the arguments of counsel, in a January 10, 

2019 order and attached written decision, the motion judge denied defendant's 

motion, finding defendant willfully violated the conditions of PTI and was no 

longer a viable candidate. The judge found defendant's testimony not credible 

and the testimony of the probation officer credible. In her written decision, the 

judge noted numerous inconsistencies in defendant's testimony, resulting in the 

judge discrediting defendant's testimony as "unbelievable." 

After being denied reinstatement to PTI, defendant filed a motion to 

withdraw her guilty plea. The judge denied the motion, stating "PTI is not just 

privilege, it is a gift." The judge sentenced defendant to three years in prison.

On appeal, defendant raises the following argument:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN 

FAILING TO REINSTATE DEFENDANT INTO PTI.

We review discretionary decisions by a trial court, such as reinstatement 

to PTI, for abuse of discretion. State v. R.Y., 242 N.J. 48, 65 (2020). We will 
7

A-0695-19

reverse discretionary determinations "only when the exercise of discretion was 

'manifestly unjust' under the circumstances." Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. 

N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 423 N.J. Super. 140, 174 (App. Div. 2011) 

(quoting Union Cnty. Improvement Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, 392 N.J. Super. 141, 

149 (App. Div. 2007)). 

The traditional patent and gross abuse of discretion standard applicable to 

an initial decision regarding admission to PTI "does not govern a court's 

discretionary decision on reconsideration to readmit a defendant into PTI." State 

v. A.S.-M., 444 N.J. Super. 334, 346 (App. Div. 2016). The decision to readmit 

a defendant to PTI is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(g). In reviewing a motion for readmission to PTI, the court 

must consider whether (1) the defendant willfully violated the conditions of PTI 

and (2) the defendant remains a viable candidate for PTI under the original or 

modified PTI conditions. A.S.-M., 444 N.J. Super. at 338-39.

We also owe deference to factual findings made by trial courts and will 

uphold such findings if the record contains sufficient credible evidence . State 

v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 166 (2015). As a general matter, we "give deference to 

those findings of the trial judge which are substantially influenced by his [or 

her] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, 
8

A-0695-19

which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 

(1999). We may disregard those findings "only when a trial court's findings of 

fact are clearly mistaken." State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 262 (2015).

Defendant argues the judge abused her discretion in denying reinstatement 

to PTI. We disagree.

Defendant contends remaining arrest free since the initial arrest supported 

her reinstatement to PTI. However, not re-offending is just one of the 

requirements to maintain admission in a PTI program. Defendant overlooks her 

failure to comply with nearly every other condition of PTI, including reporting 

to her probation officer, completing community service, and paying the 

outstanding fine. 

Further, defendant's contention her negative test for alcohol and drugs 

warranted reinstatement to PTI misunderstands the purpose of the evaluation. 

The substance abuse counselor recommended defendant participate in an early 

intervention program to provide defendant with appropriate coping mechanisms 

to avoid dangerous behaviors when confronted with daily stresses and 

significant life events. In accepting admission to PTI, defendant agreed to 

comply with recommendations made during her PTI supervision. Here, 
9

A-0695-19

defendant disregarded the recommendation of the substance abuse counselor and 

her probation officer by declining to enroll in an early intervention program.

We also defer to the judge's detailed findings after three days of 

testimonial hearings. In discrediting defendant's testimony as "completely 

unbelievable," and relying on the probation officer's credible testimony, the 

judge found defendant willfully violated the conditions of PTI. Based on 

defendant's "willful failure, and defendant's rude and disrespectful treatment of 

[her probation officer]," the judge concluded defendant was "no longer a viable 

candidate for PTI." 

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the judge did not abuse her 

discretion in denying defendant's motion for reinstatement to PTI. Prior to 

admission to PTI, defendant acknowledged the significant consequences if she 

failed to comply with all aspects of the program. Admission to a PTI program 

is a privilege. Defendant lost her opportunity to avoid incarceration when she

willfully failed to comply with the conditions of PTI. 

Affirmed.