State of New Jersey v. Steven Rizzitello, 147 A.3d 480

Background

Defendant Steven Rizzitello was indicted for fourth-degree operation of a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension for a second-or-subsequent DWI, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b), after being stopped July 5, 2013, less than two months following a third DWI conviction.
Defendant has a long history of alcohol dependence and multiple prior DWI and driving-while-suspended convictions dating to 1987, including a May 29, 2013 third DWI conviction that triggered a lengthy suspension.
Defendant applied for Pretrial Intervention (PTI); the vicinage PTI Director recommended denial based on deterrence/public-safety concerns and repeated defiance of court-ordered suspensions.
The Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office (OCPO) rejected PTI; the trial judge reviewed the record, found the prosecutor minimized defendant’s age and treatment efforts, and overrode the veto, admitting defendant to PTI as a "patent and gross abuse of discretion."
The State appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the judge failed to apply the highly deferential standard for reviewing prosecutorial PTI decisions and that the prosecutor’s veto was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion given public-safety and deterrence concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) carries a presumption against PTI admission	OCPO: the offense should carry a presumption against PTI under Guideline 3(i) and legislative intent	Rizzitello: no presumption; courts should consider individual mitigation and rehabilitation	Court: No presumption applies; statute and Guideline 3(i) do not list this fourth-degree offense
Whether the prosecutor properly exercised discretion in vetoing PTI	OCPO: veto justified by defendant’s repeated defiance of license suspensions and public-safety/deterrence policy	Rizzitello: prosecutor failed to weigh mitigating factors (age, treatment, addiction) and thus abused discretion	Court: Prosecutor’s veto did not amount to a patent and gross abuse of discretion; defer to prosecutorial charging function
Whether the trial judge applied the correct standard in overruling the prosecutor	State: judge failed to apply Roseman’s deferential standard and misapprehended the offense’s deterrence purpose	Defendant: judge relied on defendant-specific rehabilitation prospects to override veto	Court: Judge misapplied the standard and gave insufficient deference to prosecutorial decision-making; reversal required
Whether defendant’s addiction and treatment participation outweigh public-safety concerns	Defendant: alcoholism is mitigating and shows amenability to rehabilitation	OCPO: mandatory/previous treatment (IDRC) did not deter repeated conduct; treatment here was statutory and not mitigating	Court: Defendant’s treatment history was not persuasive mitigation for driving in defiance of court-ordered suspension; public-safety weight favors prosecutor

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (articulates the highly deferential "patent and gross abuse of discretion" standard for judicial review of prosecutorial PTI vetoes)
State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (1979) (foundation for reviewing prosecutorial exercise of discretion in PTI decisions)
State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (2008) (framework for PTI eligibility and consideration of public-safety factors)
State v. Perry, 439 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2015) (explains elements of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) and that criminal liability requires driving during court-ordered suspension)
State v. Sylvester, 437 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2014) (upheld conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) where conduct showed contempt for court authority)
State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (1987) (discusses the primary public-safety purpose of drunk-driving statutes)