STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHELLE ROSALES-SERRANO(15-02-0424, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2684-15T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHELLE ROSALES-SERRANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Argued May 4, 2017 – Decided June 12, 2017
Before Judges Whipple and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 15-
02-0424.
Eric M. Mark argued the cause for appellant
(Law Offices of Eric M. Mark, attorney; Mr.
Mark, on the brief).
Camila Garces, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued
the cause for respondent (Carolyn A. Murray,
Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms.
Garces, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for third-
degree theft by deception after entering a guilty plea. Defendant
argues the prosecutor's rejection of defendant from admission into
pretrial intervention (PTI) was an abuse of discretion because it
lacked consideration of all the relevant factors. We disagree
that the judge's denial of her PTI appeal was an error in judgment.
We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. Defendant
was employed as a secretary at a surgical medical practice. On
December 3, 2013, the doctor who owned the practice reported to
police that defendant had stolen funds from the practice by either
depositing checks directly into her own account or electronically
transferring funds from the doctor's account into her own. Police
investigation showed defendant had also applied for credit in the
doctor's name. Defendant and a co-defendant were arrested
following the investigation. On February 25, 2015, defendant was
indicted for third-degree offenses, including conspiracy, N.J.S.A.
2C:5-2; theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4(b); theft by unlawful
taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a); receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A.
2C:20-7(a); forgery, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(3); and wrongful
impersonation, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17(a)(4).
Defendant applied for PTI, and on or about July 8, 2015,
Essex County Probation recommended her for admission. However,
the prosecutor objected by a letter, which evaluated the seventeen
relevant criteria listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e), finding
2 A-2684-15T4
aggravating factors 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 applied. The
prosecutor also considered defendant's background and potential
for rehabilitation and found mitigating factors 3, 9, 10, 12, and
13 applied. The prosecutor concluded defendant had not established
the value of supervisory treatment outweighed the need for
prosecution because the aggravating factors outweighed the
mitigating factors and militated against admission into PTI.
Defendant appealed the PTI determination, which was denied
by the trial judge on August 24, 2015. On the record, the judge
discussed the evidence against defendant, as well as defendant's
arguments for PTI. The judge found the prosecutor properly weighed
the relevant factors, particularly, the large sum of money stolen,
the victim's desire for prosecution, the defendant's position as
a trusted employee during the commission of the theft, and the
two-month period over which the thefts occurred. The judge found
"the prosecutor provided a synopsis of her reasoning and ultimate
conclusions regarding each factor, and also provided supporting
case law to bolster her conclusion as to each factor." The judge
found defendant's conduct demonstrated a continuing pattern of
anti-social behavior, and while expressing sympathy for
defendant's circumstances, he stated, "I cannot conclude [the
denial of PTI] was a clear error in judgment[.] I find that
traditional prosecution is warranted in this case." The judge
3 A-2684-15T4
concluded the prosecutor's denial of PTI was not an abuse of
discretion.
Defendant pled guilty to one count of third-degree theft by
deception and was sentenced to two and one half years of probation,
restitution, and community service. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant argues the following:
I. THE STATE'S DECISION TO REJECT MS. ROSALES
FROM PTI WAS A GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION
BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT
FACTORS, IMPROPERLY WEIGHED FACTORS, AND
AMOUNTS TO A CLEAR ERROR IN JUDGMENT.
II. THE JUDGE'S AFFIRMATION OF THE STATE'S
PTI DENIAL WAS A PRO FORMA RUBBER STAMP THAT
FAILED TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE REASONS FOR
THE DENIAL, INCLUDING WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR'S
FINDINGS AMOUNTED TO A CLEAR ERROR IN
JUDGMENT.
Admission into the PTI program is based on a favorable
recommendation from the PTI director and the consent of the
prosecutor. State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246 (1995); State v.
Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621-22 (2015). In determining whether to
recommend or consent to admission, the PTI director and the
prosecutor must consider seventeen factors listed in N.J.S.A.
2C:43-12(e). See also R. 3:28. The statutory list is not
exhaustive, and additional relevant factors may also be
considered. State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 84 (2003).
4 A-2684-15T4
The scope of judicial review of a prosecutor's determination
is severely limited. Nwobu, supra, 139 N.J. at 246; State v.
Hermann, 80 N.J. 122, 127-28 (1979). Prosecutors have wide
latitude in deciding whom to divert into the PTI program and whom
to prosecute. Nwobu, supra, 139 N.J. at 246. Courts grant
"enhanced" or "extra deference" to the prosecutor's decision.
Ibid.
"Judicial review serves only to check the most egregious
examples of injustice and unfairness." Negran, supra, 178 N.J.
at 82 (citation omitted). A reviewing court may order a defendant
into PTI over a prosecutor's objection only if the defendant
"clearly and convincingly establish[es] that the prosecutor's
refusal to sanction admission into the program was based on a
patent and gross abuse . . . of discretion." State v. Wallace,
146 N.J. 576, 582 (1996) (alteration in original) (quoting State
v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 382 (1977)). See also State v.
Benjamin, __ N.J. __, __ (2017) ("[A] defendant may obtain a
hearing to review the prosecutor's decision only after he or she
has demonstrated in a motion that the prosecutor abused his or her
discretion.").
An abuse of discretion is "manifest if defendant shows that
a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon consideration of
all relevant factors, (b) was based upon consideration of
5 A-2684-15T4
irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear
error in judgment." Id. at 583. "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. Bender, 80
N.J. 84, 93 (1979). Absent evidence to the contrary, a reviewing
court must assume the prosecutor considered all relevant factors
in reaching its decision. State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 509
(1981) (citing Bender, supra, 80 N.J. at 94).
Applying these principals, we have reviewed defendant's
arguments challenging the prosecutor's rejection of her admission
into PTI. Despite defendant's contentions, we are satisfied the
trial judge conducted proper review of the PTI denial and
determined the prosecutor had provided sufficient reasons in
support of the determination, relying upon all the required
factors. The findings and accompanying reasoning more than
satisfactorily supported the conclusion the prosecutor had acted
within her discretion. We do not consider the determination so
inconsistent with the rationale for PTI that fundamental fairness
requires us to intervene. See Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 582-
83. Defendant has not established a patent and gross abuse of
discretion in her rejection.
6 A-2684-15T4
As to defendant's remaining arguments, we find they lack
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
7 A-2684-15T4