State of New Jersey v. Kellyann Houghtaling ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0274-22
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KELLYANN HOUGHTALING,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted November 28, 2023 – Decided April 10, 2024
Before Judges Smith and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Accusation No.
22-04-0327.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Joie D. Piderit, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Kellyanne Houghtaling appeals her denial of admission into
the pretrial intervention (PTI) program.1 We affirm for the reasons that follow.
I.
On March 21, 2021, New Jersey State Police responded to a 911 hang-up
at Interchange 10 on the New Jersey Turnpike. Responding officers found a car
stopped on the shoulder. The car was occupied by defendant and a passenger
with whom defendant had a physical altercation. When officers asked defendant
if she possessed any weapons, defendant stated there were two guns in the car.
She advised officers she had a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit. Officers
then searched the car and found: a handgun under the driver's seat; two ten-
round magazines, one under the driver's seat, one in a range bag in the trunk;
and three boxes of ammunition. The officers confirmed defendant's
Pennsylvania permit was valid and administered a field sobriety test which
indicated defendant was impaired. The officers then arrested defendant and
1
"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.'" State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621 (2015).
The "primary goal" of PTI is the "rehabilitation of a person accused of a criminal
offense." State v. Bell, 217 N.J. 336, 346 (2014). "It is designed 'to assist in
the rehabilitation of worthy defendants, and, in the process, to spare them the
rigors of the criminal justice system.'" State v. Randall, 414 N.J. Super. 414,
419 (App. Div. 2010).
A-0274-22
2
charged her with: second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-5(b)(1); driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50; reckless
driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96; and simple assault on her passenger, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
1(a)(1).
Defendant applied for admission into PTI. A probation officer reviewed
defendant's application and recommended enrollment. The Middlesex County
Prosecutor's Office refused consent to PTI, stating their reasons for denial in
writing. Defendant moved to compel her admission into PTI before the trial
court.
After reciting the applicable law, the court stated:
The [c]ourt considers the following favorable factors in
its overall analysis. The defendant is [twenty-seven]
years old and has no prior criminal convictions.
Defendant's cooperation with the police during the
incident, and the fact the defendant was driving through
the State of New Jersey and had no intention of
breaking the law in New Jersey. In addition to the other
six mitigating factors, the [court] finds the [State]
considered the nature and circumstances of the incident
in making its decision. The defendant's ignorance of the
law does not take away from the gravity of a gun
offense. Here, the defendant was charged with
unlawful possession of a weapon in the second degree
in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) and simple
assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1). She was
also cited for reckless driving and operating under the
influence of alcohol. The defendant's actions posed
serious, potential injurious consequences and the
A-0274-22
3
[c]ourt has a great interest in protecting society from
dangerous behavior like in this case. Thus, the State
accurately analyzed N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e) and the
defendant's motion is therefore, denied.
After the trial court denied her motion, defendant pled guilty to the
weapons charge. During her allocution she admitted that her blood alcohol level
was .09 when she was pulled over by the police. 2 A different judge sentenced
her to a two-year term of probation on the weapons charge. On appeal,
defendant argues:
THE PROSECUTOR'S DENIAL OF PTI WAS A
PATENT AND GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION;
ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO ADMIT DEFENDANT INTO
PTI OVER THE PROSECUTOR'S OBJECTION.
II.
Our review of an appeal from a denial of PTI is "severely limited." State
v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82, (2003). If a prosecutor's PTI decision shows
2
Defendant pled guilty to DWI in a separate proceeding prior to her allocution
on the weapons charge. She was sentenced to pay statutory fines and penalties
and she was required to install an ignition interlock for a period of three months.
As a Pennsylvania resident with a Pennsylvania driver's license, her New Jersey
DWI conviction guilty plea was referred to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for administrative disposition of her license, the status of which is not relevant
here. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the court granted
the State's application to dismiss defendant's simple assault and reckless driving
charges at sentencing.
A-0274-22
4
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). When reviewing a denial of PTI, a court "cannot substitute its own
judgment for that of the prosecutor." State v. Hoffman, 399 N.J. Super. 207,
216 (App. Div. 2008).
We consider certain well-settled principles as we address defendant's
claims on appeal. The decision by a prosecutor to permit diversion to PTI is
"essentially an extension of the charging decision." State v. Johnson, 238 N.J.
119, 128 (2019). Such a decision is a "quintessentially prosecutorial function."
Ibid. Prosecutors must "make an individualized assessment of the defendant"
even where a statutory presumption against PTI exists, as "[e]ligibility for PTI
is broad enough to include all defendants who demonstrate sufficient effort to
effect necessary behavioral change and show that future criminal behavior will
not occur." Roseman, 221 N.J. at 622. If a prosecutor rejects a PTI application,
"then a written statement of reasons must be provided." State v. Caliguiri, 158
N.J. 28, 36 (1999). This statement must include an adequate explanation by the
State as to how it addressed each of the statutory factors, State v. E.R., 471 N.J.
Super. 234, 248 (App. Div. 2022), and cannot merely parrot statutory language
or present bare assertions, Roseman, 221 N.J. at 627.
A-0274-22
5
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). A defendant rejected from PTI must clearly and
convincingly establish the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into a PTI
program was based on a patent and gross abuse of discretion. K.S., 220 N.J. at
200. "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
fairness and justice require judicial intervention.'" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 520(quoting State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 583 (1996)). "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." State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 254 (1995).
III.
Defendant's probation officer found she was a suitable candidate for PTI,
even though she was charged with a second-degree Graves Act offense, unlawful
possession of a weapon. The probation officer found defendant did not appear
to have any intention to use the weapons seized, and that defendant’s
Pennsylvania firearms licenses were valid and in good standing at the time of
the offense. The probation officer recommended PTI for several reasons, among
A-0274-22
6
them: this was defendant's first offense; she had no history of violence;
defendant had maintained verifiable employment; she acknowledged the
seriousness of her charges; and PTI would be a sufficient deterrent from future
criminal activity. The probation officer also recommended that defendant
undergo a mental health evaluation and counseling based on an indication of
trauma which defendant reported experiencing during childhood.
The prosecutor rejected the probation officer's recommendations, and
denied defendant's admission to PTI in a detailed and thorough letter which
supported the decision. We affirm for reasons set forth in the trial court's order
and oral statement of reasons, as well as the prosecutor's written consideration
of the seventeen statutory factors identified in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e). Defendant
did not show by clear and convincing evidence a patent and gross abuse of
discretion by the prosecutor, and hence we discern no reason to disturb the trial
court's order. K.S., 220 N.J. at 200.
We add the following brief comments. The Attorney General's Law
Enforcement Directive No. 2014, entitled, Clarification of "Graves Act" 2008
Directive With Respect to Offenses Committed by Out-of-State Visitors From
States Where Their Gun Possession Conduct Would Have Been Lawful (Sept.
A-0274-22
7
24, 2014) (2014 Clarification), identifies a weapons possession fact pattern
which the Attorney General considers "outside the heartland of the Graves Act."
Citing the Clarification our Supreme Court noted a "sentence of non-
custodial probation or [PTI] would be appropriate when 'a resident of another
state brings a firearm that had been acquired lawfully and that could be carried
lawfully by that visitor in [their] home jurisdiction.'" State v. Nance, 228 N.J.
378, 390 n.2 (2017) (quoting 2014 Clarification at 1). We briefly consider
whether the prosecutor engaged in a patent and gross abuse of discretion by not
applying the Clarification exception here.
When considering factors that apply to PTI determinations involving
Graves Act cases, prosecutors should "when applicable and feasible[,] consider
'special facts.'" 2014 Clarification at 5. Such facts include whether:
(a) the manner and circumstances of the gun possession
minimized the exposure of the firearm to others in
this State, thereby reducing the risk of harm;
(b) the gun-possession offense was isolated and
aberrational;
(c) the defendant on his own initiative advised the
police that a gun was present;
(d) the defendant surrendered an unloaded gun for safe-
keeping; and
A-0274-22
8
(e) whether there are circumstances concerning
confusion of New Jersey and other state law.
The record shows the prosecutor considered special facts in the record and
found 2014 Clarification factors (a) and (b) weighed against defendant's
admission to PTI. The prosecutor pointed out that defendant had an unsecured
handgun and ammunition with her in the front passenger compartment, not the
trunk of the car, when she was pulled over. The prosecutor also noted the other
serious charges which arose from the traffic stop besides the weapons offense,
namely reckless driving, DWI, and simple assault on her passenger. Because
defendant resided in Pennsylvania, had a valid gun license in that state, drove
through New Jersey with her firearm, she argues her gun charge fell outside the
Graves Act "heartland," and made her eligible for PTI under the 2014
Clarification. Given the balance of the record, however, defendant failed to
show by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor committed a patent
and gross abuse of discretion in rejecting her PTI application under the 2014
Clarification.
Affirmed.
A-0274-22
9