STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CANDIDO ORTIZ(15-02-0059, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1398-15T3

Defendant Candido Ortiz was charged with two third-degree thefts (Lord & Taylor and Macy’s) and two disorderly-persons shoplifting charges from the same incident; he admitted possession of the stolen items.
He pled and was sentenced to three years probation with fines and conditions; he sought admission to the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) but was denied.
PTI Director and prosecutor cited defendant’s prior municipal convictions (2010–2015), a 2014 probation sentence for drug paraphernalia, a probation violation, and an ongoing pattern of arrests while on supervision.
Prosecutor reviewed Rule 3:28 guidelines and statutory factors (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)) and issued successive denials after considering materials about defendant’s mental health and substance-abuse treatment efforts.
Law Division judge affirmed the denial, finding the prosecutor’s decision legally sufficient and not a patent and gross abuse of discretion; appellate division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor abused discretion in denying PTI	Prosecutor: denial justified based on guidelines and defendant’s criminal history, probation violations, and public-safety concerns	Ortiz: denial arbitrary, misapplied guidelines, and capricious given his treatment efforts	Affirmed — no patent and gross abuse of discretion; decision reasonable under guidelines
Whether court should overturn PTI denial for failure to consider relevant factors	State: considered statutory factors and individualized amenability to rehabilitation	Ortiz: alleged omission or misweighing of rehabilitative evidence	Denial was premised on relevant factors; court found proper consideration
Whether prior disorderly-persons and municipal convictions bar PTI exception	State: PTI ordinarily for those with no prior convictions; defendant’s arrest history counseled against exception	Ortiz: prior contacts were minor and treatment efforts warrant exception	Court upheld relying on prior convictions and repeated arrests to deny exception
Whether defendant’s mental-health/substance-abuse treatment sufficed to require PTI admission	State: treatment efforts insufficient relative to pattern of recidivism and probation failures	Ortiz: presented materials showing treatment and mitigation	Court held treatment did not overcome concerns about amenability and public safety

State v. Bell, 217 N.J. 336 (statement on PTI’s diversionary purpose and stigma avoidance)
State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (PTI eligibility and consideration of statutory factors)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (prosecutorial discretion over PTI admissions)
State v. Dalgleish, 86 N.J. 503 (historical deference to prosecutorial charging discretion)
State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (scope of prosecutor’s PTI discretion)
State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (need to show amenability to rehabilitation to challenge PTI denial)
State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73 (review limited to most egregious injustices in PTI denials)
State v. Lee, 437 N.J. Super. 555 (abuse-of-discretion standard for PTI denials)
State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (factors establishing abuse of discretion)