STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. R.M.M. (17-06-0300, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0650-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.M.M.,1
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted June 6, 2022 – Decided June 27, 2022
Before Judges Mayer and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 17-06-
0300.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Alicia J. Hubbard, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Annmarie Taggart, Acting Somerset County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Fara Momen,
1
We use initials to preserve the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38-
3(c)(5).
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant R.M.M. appeals from an August 9, 2019 Law Division order
denying her admission into the pretrial intervention (PTI) program. We affirm.
This matter returns to us following a remand ordered in our previous
opinion. State v. R.M.M., No. A-3132-17 (App. Div. Apr. 2, 2019) (slip op. at
7). By way of background, defendant was charged with third-degree resisting
arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3)(A) and applied for PTI. The Criminal Division
Manager (CDM), who also served as the PTI director, denied her application.
Initially, the State did not oppose defendant's application, but changed its
position and supported denial of PTI. Defendant appealed to the Law Division,
and on September 12, 2017, the judge affirmed the denial of defendant's
application. Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to resisting arrest and was
sentenced to one year probation.
The facts giving rise to the resisting arrest charge are straightforward. The
Hillsborough Police Department responded to a call from a local hotel, reporting
a man kicked in the hotel's office door and tried to assault the manager. The
caller reported that the man and a woman ran down the street and were hiding
in the nearby woods. Officers searched the woods for the two individuals and
A-0650-19
2
found a man and defendant. As discussed in greater detail later in our opinion,
see infra at p. 9, defendant violently resisted the officers who tried to arrest her.
In addition to resisting arrest, defendant was charged with disorderly persons
offenses for possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, N.J.S.A. 2C:36 -2,
and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function, N.J.S.A.
2C:29-1, which were dismissed in accordance with her plea agreement.
In our unpublished opinion, we concluded a remand was necessary
because the CDM and prosecutor rejected defendant's application "almost
exclusively on her three prior juvenile adjudications without consideration of
other relevant factors" set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e). R.M.M., slip op. at 6-
7. As we explained:
[T]he CDM and the prosecutor failed to give
consideration to defendant's individual characteristics,
including the following: her small stature relative to
the officers who made the arrest; her youth at the time
of the offense; consideration that her offense was
unrelated to the property damage and attempted assault
of the hotel manager; her amenability to rehabilitation;
her need for counseling to address her judgment in
selecting acquaintances; her lack of any prior adult
offenses; her strong family bond; her graduation from
high school; her desire to attend a four-year college;
and her attaining a full-time job after graduating high
school so she could enroll in college.
[Id. at 6.]
A-0650-19
3
On remand, the CDM and prosecutor reevaluated defendant's application
and again found that defendant was unfit for PTI. Defendant filed a second
appeal to the Law Division and, after considering our opinion, the CDM's and
prosecutor's letters reaffirming their initial recommendations, along with the
parties' written submissions and oral arguments, Judge Kevin M. Shanahan
denied defendant's appeal and issued an August 9, 2019 order and written
opinion in which he explained:
[T]he State has addressed the factors set forth by the
Appellate Division in its letter of June 28, 2019. The
prosecutor weighed the defendant's relatively small
stature, noting that she has had multiple physical
confrontations with police. The prosecutor also spoke
to the possibility for counseling/rehabilitation, stating
that the defendant has faced problems with law
enforcement while with various acquaintances and that
she has previously failed to successfully rehabilitate as
she had not paid restitution, committed new offenses,
and had tested positive for drug use. The State also
emphasized that while the defendant had no adult
criminal history, she was only nineteen at the time of
the present offense and did have a prior juvenile
history. Finally, the State addressed the defendant's
family bonds and desire to attend college as factors
which did not fully mitigate the other reasons for
rejection from PTI. It is clear that the State has now
addressed all relevant factors, including the defendant's
specific individual characteristics as required by the
Appellate Division. See State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190,
200 (2015). Consequently, this Court cannot conclude
that there was a pat[]ent and gross abuse of discretion
A-0650-19
4
or that the rejection from PTI was arbitrary and
unreasonable.
The Court does not find that the prosecutor's decision
has gone so wide off the mark sought to be
accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and
justice requires judicial intervention. Taken together,
the State's previous and current PTI rejections
confirmed that its decision rested on an evaluation of
all of the relevant factors in this case, including those
factors specified by the Appellate Division. Therefore,
this Court must afford the State the enhanced deference
required by law.
This appeal followed in which defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
STATE'S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S
APPLICATION FOR PRE-TRIAL INTERVENTION
WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
A. The State's Failure to Consider Relevant Factors
1. Factors One, Two, Eight, Nine, Ten, and
Twelve
2. Factor Three
3. Factors Five and Six
4. Factors Seven, Eleven, Fourteen, and
Seventeen[2]
2
We have reformatted defendant's point headings by adding numbers 1-4 for
ease of reference.
A-0650-19
5
B. The Subversion of the goals of the PTI
Program
We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the applicable law
and the motion record and reject all of her arguments substantially for the
reasons detailed in Judge Shanahan's thoughtful and well-reasoned twelve-page
written decision. We provide the following comments to amplify our decision.
Our review of an appeal from denial of PTI is limited. State v. Negran,
178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003). We apply the same de novo standard of review of a
prosecutor's rejection of a PTI application as the trial court. State v. Waters,
439 N.J. Super. 215, 226 (App. Div. 2015). If a prosecutor's decision
demonstrates consideration of all appropriate factors, it will not be disturbed
absent a showing that it was a patent and gross abuse of discretion. State v.
K.S., 220 N.J. 190, 200 (2015). We afford prosecutors "broad discretion to
determine if a defendant should be diverted." Id. at 199. We address "only the
'most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness'" in reviewing a denial of
PTI. Negran, 178 N.J. at 82 (quoting State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 384
(1977)). A defendant rejected from PTI "must 'clearly and convincingly' show
that the decision [to deny admission into PTI] was a 'patent and gross abuse
of . . . discretion.'" K.S., 220 N.J. at 200 (quoting State v. Wallace, 146 N.J.
576, 582 (1996)).
A-0650-19
6
A "[d]efendant generally has a heavy burden when seeking to overcome a
prosecutorial denial of his [or her] admission into PTI." State v. Watkins, 193
N.J. 507, 520 (2008). The decision whether to admit a defendant to a PTI
program is "'primarily individualistic in nature' and a prosecutor must consider
an individual defendant's features that bear on his or her amenability to
rehabilitation." State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 255 (1995) (quoting State v.
Sutton, 80 N.J. 110, 119 (1979)).
To establish an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, a defendant must
demonstrate:
that 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 judgment . . . . 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].
[State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 625 (2015) (first
alteration in original) (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J.
84, 93 (1979)).]
Applying these standards, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
prosecutor's denial of defendant's application, much less one that is "patent and
gross." "A patent and gross abuse of discretion is defined as a decision that 'has
gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental
A-0650-19
7
fairness and justice require judicial intervention.'" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 520(quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83). "The question is not whether we agree
or disagree with the prosecutor's decision, but whether the prosecutor's decision
could not have been reasonably made upon weighing the relevant factors."
Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 254.
First, contrary to defendant's arguments before us, and as Judge Shanahan
correctly concluded, the CDM and prosecutor fully complied with our remand
instructions, specifically considering all relevant factors set forth in N.J.S.A.
2C:43-12(e)3 as well as the personal characteristics we identified in our
unpublished opinion.
3
In point I.A, defendant specifically contends the CDM and prosecutor failed
to consider N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(1) (nature of the offense), (2) (facts of the
case), (3) (motivation and age of defendant), (5) (existence of personal problems
which may be related to the crime and for which services may be provided more
effectively through supervisory treatment and the probability that the causes of
the behavior can be controlled by treatment), (6) (likelihood that the crime is
related to a situation that would be conducive to change through participation in
supervisory treatment), (7) (needs and interest of the victim and society), (8)
(extent to which the applicant's crime constitutes part of a continuing pattern of
anti-social behavior), (9) (applicant's record of criminal and penal violations and
the extent to which she may present a substantial danger to others), (10) (whether
or not the crime is of an assaultive or violent nature), (11) (whether or not
prosecution would exacerbate the problem that led to the criminal act), (12)
(history of use of physical violence towards others), (13) (any involvement with
organized crime), (14) (whether or not the crime is of such a nature that the
value of supervisory treatment would be outweighed by the public need for
A-0650-19
8
In doing so, the CDM and prosecutor properly described the violent
assault committed by defendant upon the police while resisting arrest. As
detailed by the CDM, and which the prosecutor expressly agreed, defendant
repeatedly failed to remain on the ground when directed by the police, ran from
them while handcuffed, rolled on her back in a defensive position while the
officers attempted to detain her, refused to provide identifying information,
spewed vituperative epithets, and violently assaulted a police officer by
repeatedly kicking him in the groin. In similar circumstances, we concluded
that such violent conduct supported a prosecutor's presumption against PTI. See
State v. Lee, 437 N.J. Super 555, 569 (App. Div. 2014) (sustaining a prosecutor's
rejection of the defendant's application to PTI where defendant deliberately
assaulted police officers).
The CDM considered defendant's relative size contextually by referring
to a prior violent interaction with the police where she escaped from her
handcuffs and engaged in similar assaultive conduct, most notably by using the
handcuffs as a weapon and attempting to kick out the windows of the police
prosecution), and (17) (whether or not the harm done to society by abandoning
criminal prosecution would outweigh the benefits to society from channeling an
offender into a supervisory treatment program).
A-0650-19
9
vehicle during her detention. The prosecutor also acknowledged defendant's
size but explained that such a characteristic had limited relevancy to the decision
whether to admit defendant to PTI.
The CDM and prosecutor found defendant's amenability to rehabilitation
was limited. Each noted that she committed her resisting offense while on
probation, previously tested positive for controlled dangerous substances, and
failed to make restitution payments related to a prior incident when she
intentionally damaged a classmate's car. The CDM also noted that defendant
had been "uncooperative with following substance abuse evaluation
recommendations."
The CDM acknowledged that defendant's resisting offense was "her first
arrest as an adult" but also explained that she was only eighteen at the time and
had prior criminal incidents. Likewise, the prosecutor stated that, due to
defendant's age at the time of her resisting offense, her lack of an adult record
was "not surprising." The prosecutor also explained that defendant "has
amassed a record that included multiple incidents of threatening or violent
behavior against law enforcement officers" evidencing "defendant's deep-seated
animosity toward law enforcement which is somewhat unusual in light of her
relatively young age."
A-0650-19
10
With regard to defendant's bond with her family, the CDM stated it was
unclear whether she "would receive financial and emotional support while
residing with her family during a period of PTI postponement." The prosecutor
also expressed doubts that defendant's bond with her family was "strong,"
reasoning that her family was "unwilling to pay restitution to resolve a prior
juvenile matter without court involvement."
The CDM and prosecutor also acknowledged that defendant graduated
from high school, works full-time, and intends to obtain a four-year college
degree, but concluded those facts did not support her admission to PTI. The
CDM explained that rejection from PTI should not preclude defendant from
graduating from college or obtaining gainful employment, noting that defendant
may seek an expungement after a waiting period.
As to her "need for counseling to address her judgment in selecting
acquaintances" the prosecutor reasoned that defendant's history indicates that
"she is the common denominator in various incidents with the police, and not an
arbitrarily noted 'acquaintance.'" The CDM and prosecutor also acknowledged
that defendant was not charged with any offenses related to the property damage
or attempted assault at the hotel. The CDM explained, however, that defendant
knowingly possessed "illegal drug paraphernalia" at the time she resisted arrest.
A-0650-19
11
"[U]nless and until a defendant demonstrates [the prosecutor failed to
consider the seventeen factors listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)], our judges must
presume that all relevant factors were considered and weighed prior to a
prosecutorial veto." Lee, 437 N.J. Super. at 562 (first alteration in original)
(quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 94); see also Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 249 ("the prosecutor
'should note the factors present in defendant's background or the offense
purportedly committed which led [the prosecutor] to conclude that admission
should be denied.'") (alteration in original) (quoting Sutton, 80 N.J. at 117).
Here, defendant did not rebut that presumption.
We note that the CDM's and prosecutor's letters, rather than form
correspondences indiscriminately noting the statutory factors, represented a
tailored response to defendant's application and a specific rejection of all points
raised. See Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 249 (explaining the prosecutor must state the
reasons for rejecting a PTI application with specificity). The prosecutor fully
considered the relevant factors and those we identified, and considered not only
the facts of the case, which included defendant's violent assault and shockingly
dangerous interactions with armed police officers, but also her age, personal
characteristics, physical condition, prior involvement with the criminal justice
system, and the positive steps defendant made, and was making, in her life. To
A-0650-19
12
contend the prosecutor's thoughtful and considerable analysis was based
exclusively on defendant's offenses is simply without factual support.
Further, contrary to defendant's assertions, the rejection of her application
in no way "subvert[ed] the goals" of the PTI program. Instead, the CDM's and
prosecutor's careful analysis and application of the statutory factors to
defendant's personal characteristics and facts of her offense fully supported their
conclusion that defendant was unfit for admission to PTI. We reject defendant's
claims that the denial of her application subjects her to "the stigmatization of a
felony conviction," as any consequences defendant faces as a result of her
conviction are attributable to her violent offense and history of unlawful
conduct, rather than the State's reasoned rejection of her application.
We are therefore convinced that Judge Shanahan correctly determined the
prosecutor's decision to deny defendant's application to PTI was not a patent and
gross abuse of discretion. The prosecutor's decision was not so wide of the mark
of the goals of PTI that it requires our intervention.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's
arguments, it is because we have concluded any such issue lacked sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
A-0650-19
13
Affirmed.
A-0650-19
14