Court Opinion

ID: 9948968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:16:56.505494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:25.355084
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1276-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LOUIS M. APONTE, a/k/a
LOUIS APONTE, and
LUIS APONTE,

          Defendant-Appellant.

                   Submitted January 23, 2024 – Decided March 8, 2024

                   Before Judges Natali and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 21-01-0140.

                   Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                   appellant (Morgan A. Birck, Assistant Deputy Public
                   Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

                   Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
                   respondent (Jaimee M. Chasmer, Assistant Prosecutor,
                   of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Defendant Louis M. Aponte appeals from the Law Division's March 29,

2022 order denying his motion to compel admission into the Pretrial Intervention

Program (PTI) over the prosecutor's objection.       Because the Law Division

correctly determined that the prosecutor's decision was not a patently gross abuse

of discretion, we affirm.

      On May 24, 2020, defendant was bicycling with a group of individuals in

Tenafly. When the group entered an intersection, defendant ran a red light to

keep up with them and nearly hit a car. Defendant shouted at the driver of the car

and kept cycling. The victim, another cyclist in the group, rode up to defendant

and either tapped or shoved him on the back and said, "You blew the red light

dude, calm down." The victim then cycled ahead. Defendant caught up with the

victim and shoved him, which caused him to fall off his bike onto the ground.

The victim sustained a severe concussion and fractured his collarbone, pelvis and

sacrum.

      Defendant was indicted on a single count of third-degree aggravated

assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7). He applied for admission into the PTI program.

The Bergen County Prosecutor's Office rejected his application, setting forth

reasons for its decision in a letter dated December 22, 2021. In that letter, an

assistant prosecutor reviewed the seventeen factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-

                                                                            A-1276-22
                                        2
12(e), found six aggravating factors, considered the letters of mitigation

submitted by defendant, and determined defendant was not a suitable candidate

for the PTI program.

      Defendant filed a motion with the Law Division to compel his admission

into PTI over the prosecutor's objection. On February 11, 2022, a Law Division

judge heard arguments on the motion and on March 29, 2022, the judge issued a

written opinion and order denying the motion. Defendant subsequently pleaded

guilty to the charge and in accordance with the plea agreement, was sentenced to

three years' probation.

      Defendant now appeals from the order denying his motion to compel his

entry into the PTI program, arguing:

            THE    PROSECUTOR'S     REJECTION    OF
            DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION INTO THE PRETRIAL
            INTERVENTION    PROGRAM      WAS     AN
            ARBITRARY, PATENT, AND GROSS ABUSE OF
            DISCRETION WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED BY
            THIS COURT.

                  A.      The Prosecutor's Statement of Reasons was
            Insufficient.

                  B.    The Prosecutor's Decision Was Not Based
            on an Individualized Assessment of [defendant].

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

avoid criminal prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services expected to

                                                                           A-1276-22
                                       3
deter future criminal behavior.'" State v. Oguta, 468 N.J. Super. 100, 107 (App.

Div. 2021) (quoting State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 240 (1995)). PTI is governed

by both statute and court rule. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12; R. 3:28-1 to -10. "N.J.S.A.

2C:43-12(e) sets forth a list of seventeen nonexclusive factors that prosecutors

must consider in connection with a PTI application." Oguta, 468 N.J. Super. at

107 (quoting State v. Johnson, 238 N.J. 119, 128 (2019)). These statutory factors

assist the prosecutor in making "an individualized assessment of the defendant

considering his or her amenability to correction and potential responsiveness to

rehabilitation."   State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621-22 (2015) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507, 520 (2008)).

      Both the statute and the court rules call for prosecutors to consider the

nature of the offense. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(1); R. 3:28-4(b)(1). There is a

presumption against admission into PTI if "the crime or offense charged involved

violence or the threat of violence," which includes when "the victim sustains

serious or significant bodily injury." N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(b)(2)(b); see also R.

3:28-4(b)(1).

      Deciding whether to permit diversion to PTI "is a quintessentially

prosecutorial function."     State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582 (1996).

"[P]rosecutors are granted broad discretion to determine if a defendant should be

                                                                            A-1276-22
                                        4
diverted" to PTI instead of being prosecuted. State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190, 199

(2015) (citing Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582); see also State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82

(2003) (stating that courts must "allow prosecutors wide latitude"). Accordingly,

"the scope of [judicial] review is severely limited." Negran, 178 N.J. at 82 (citing

Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 246). "[T]o overturn a prosecutor's rejection, a defendant

must 'clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision constitutes

a patent and gross abuse of discretion.'" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 520 (quoting State

v. Watkins, 390 N.J. Super. 302, 305 (App. Div. 2007)). "A patent and gross

abuse of discretion is a decision that 'has gone so wide of the mark sought to be

accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice requires judicial

intervention.'" Ibid. (quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83).

      Defendant contends the prosecutor's statement of reasons was insufficient

and its decision was not based on an individualized assessment of him. We reject

these arguments because they are not supported by the record. The rejection letter

reflects that the prosecutor considered the relevant statutory factors and found six

aggravating factors, specific to the facts of this case.

      The prosecutor found the nature of the offense and facts of the case

necessitated prosecution of the matter; there may exist personal problems and

character traits related to the crime for which services are unavailable or

                                                                              A-1276-22
                                          5
insufficient within the criminal justice system, or causes of defendant's criminal

behavior cannot be controlled by proper treatment; and defendant's criminal

conduct is related to a condition or situation that would not be conducive to

change through his participation in supervisory treatment. The prosecutor also

found the needs and interests of the victim demand prosecution and the harm done

to society by abandoning criminal prosecution would outweigh the benefits to

society from channeling defendant into a supervisory treatment program.

      The prosecutor also considered the character letters defendant submitted in

mitigation, and found them not compelling because

            the authors[] do not seem to know what the purpose of
            their letter is and, clearly, do not know the violent
            allegations here. Additionally, some of the letters speak
            to defendant's abilities and discipline with respect to his
            cycling, which strikes an odd chord when viewed in light
            of the facts of the case.

      The prosecutor then considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors

and determined defendant should not be admitted into the PTI program. We agree

with the Law Division judge that the prosecutor's determination was not a patent

and gross abuse of discretion.

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1276-22
                                        6