IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.R., SVP-704-14 (ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-4986-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 24, 2017Background
- Defendant Austin P. Bacino was indicted for conspiracy to distribute marijuana (school‑zone third‑degree and lesser fourth‑degree conspiracy counts) and two disorderly persons offenses.
- PTI director rejected Bacino's PTI application, citing only that the offense was part of a criminal business/enterprise and noting a lengthy investigation and search warrant seizure.
- The prosecutor did not issue a separate written decision; later submitted a letter emphasizing culpability of the Gregory couple (alleged ringleaders) and asserting the director considered defendant's personal factors without analysis.
- Defendant argued the director ignored that he was charged with conspiracy (not direct school‑zone distribution), that he did not live at the searched premises, his youth (21), lack of adult record, nonviolent role, and amenability to rehabilitation.
- The Law Division judge found no gross and patent abuse of discretion in the director’s reliance on participation in a criminal enterprise. Defendant pled guilty to a fourth‑degree conspiracy and received probation.
- Appellate division remanded: held the director and prosecutor failed to consider statutorily required individual factors and PTI guidelines; directed written reconsideration and a documented decision by both director and prosecutor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PTI rejection was valid based solely on participation in a criminal business/enterprise | Participation in a criminal enterprise justifies general rejection under PTI Guideline 3(i)(2) | Single‑factor rejection ignored defendant’s individual circumstances and statutory factors | Rejected: one‑sided evaluation insufficient; remand required for full consideration |
| Whether the PTI director and prosecutor adequately considered defendant’s individual characteristics and N.J.S.A. 2C:43‑12(e) factors | Prosecutor asserted (without analysis) that director considered age, employment, education, record | Director and prosecutor failed to meaningfully consider or document analysis of those factors | Rejected: remand ordered for written consideration by director and separate prosecutor decision or reliance letter |
| Whether a conviction‑presumption (school‑zone) alone can foreclose PTI | State argued seriousness of offense/school‑zone supports denial | Defendant argued presumption can be rebutted by individual mitigating facts | Court held presumption cannot be the only reason; defendant must be allowed to rebut (citing Caliguiri) |
| Standard of review for PTI denial | Prosecutor: decision should be upheld absent gross and patent abuse if all factors were considered | Defendant: director did not consider required factors; abuse occurred | Court applied limited review; found insufficient consideration and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (2015) (prosecutor/director must consider all relevant factors and reasons for PTI decisions)
- State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 28 (1999) (presumption against PTI for school‑zone offenses may be rebutted; cannot be sole basis denying PTI)
- State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434 (1997) (reviewing courts ordinarily presume prosecutors considered relevant factors absent contrary record)
- State v. Green, 413 N.J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 2010) (program director/prosecutor must actually consider merits of PTI application)