State of New Jersey v. Antwain T. Waters, 107 A.3d 693

Background

Waters, a Georgia resident, was stopped in New Jersey with a 9mm handgun, a large-capacity magazine, and hollow‑nose bullets accessible in the passenger compartment; his Georgia carry license had expired.
Indicted on second‑degree unlawful possession (Graves Act exposure) and related fourth‑degree weapons/ammo counts; faced a mandatory minimum prison term under the Graves Act.
Prosecutor denied PTI based on the presumption against diversion for second‑degree offenses, the facts and danger posed by the weapons/ammo, and supervision concerns due to Waters’s Georgia residence; PTI Director issued a detailed denial after judicial remand.
First Criminal Part judge affirmed the prosecutor’s denial. Waters later pled guilty under an agreement that waived mandatory incarceration and preserved argument for probation.
A second Criminal Part judge (on a later hearing) granted PTI after the guilty plea; the State appealed arguing that (1) a PTI grant after conviction is improper and (2) the prosecutor’s denial was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion.
Appellate Division reversed the second judge, holding the post‑plea PTI grant improper and that the prosecutor’s denial fell within the highly deferential standard of review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may grant PTI after a valid guilty plea	State: PTI grant after conviction improperly converts PTI into sentencing relief and thwarts pretrial diversion; PTI appeals at trial must occur before plea or verdict	Waters: Court that reviewed PTI appeal (second judge) could grant PTI despite plea; policy examples justify PTI	Court: Granting PTI after a valid guilty plea is inappropriate; PTI appeals must be resolved pre‑conviction or on appeal after judgment
Whether the prosecutor’s denial of PTI was a patent and gross abuse of discretion	State: Prosecutor reasonably relied on Guideline 3(i) presumption for second‑degree offenses, case facts (expired permit, accessible gun/ammo, prohibited magazine/bullets), and supervision problems	Waters: Prosecutor ignored submitted mitigating materials and Attorney General Graves Act guidance favoring rare PTI grants for out‑of‑state visitors	Court: Prosecutor’s decision was within broad discretion; defendant failed to meet heavy burden to show patent and gross abuse of discretion
Relevance of defendant’s out‑of‑state purchase and travel	State: Lawful purchase elsewhere does not negate New Jersey prohibition; defendant did not establish lawful possession in home state or that he believed NJ possession lawful	Waters: Out‑of‑state legality and travel purpose place case in the ‘‘rare’’ example for PTI under AG guidance	Court: Out‑of‑state legality not controlling; defendant did not prove he met the AG’s example criteria and facts weighed against PTI
Impact of Interstate supervision and residence on PTI eligibility	State: Georgia residency impedes effective NJ supervision and ICAOS precludes transferring PTI supervision to another jurisdiction	Waters: Supervision could be handled by phone or scheduled NJ visits	Court: Prosecutor reasonably concluded effective supervision was barred by distance and compact rules; denial on that ground was proper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bell, [citation="217 N.J. 336"] (2014) (PTI not to be granted after conviction; PTI is pretrial diversion)
State v. Nwobu, [citation="139 N.J. 236"] (1995) (broad prosecutorial discretion in PTI decisions; heavy deference on review)
State v. Negran, [citation="178 N.J. 73"] (2003) (courts must allow prosecutors wide latitude in PTI matters)
State v. Wallace, [citation="146 N.J. 576"] (1996) (scope of judicial review limited; presumption that prosecutor considered relevant factors)
State v. Caliguiri, [citation="158 N.J. 28"] (1999) (presumption against diversion for serious offenses; defendant must show compelling reasons)
In re Two Seized Firearms, [citation="127 N.J. 84"] (1992) (New Jersey gun laws apply to nonresidents traveling through the state)
State v. Watkins, [citation="193 N.J. 507"] (2008) (standard for overturning PTI denial: patent and gross abuse of discretion)
State v. Kraft, [citation="265 N.J. Super. 106"] (App. Div. 1993) (prosecutor’s policy choices about PTI are entitled to deference)