STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVON M. JOHNSON(15-01-0055, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0625-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Defendant Davon M. Johnson, age 21 with no prior record, was stopped for a traffic violation; officers found three bricks (150 glassine envelopes) of heroin in his car. He was charged with possession, possession with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute in a school zone.
- Johnson applied for Pretrial Intervention (PTI); defense submitted a Statement of Compelling Reasons emphasizing youth, college enrollment, employment, family responsibilities, and lack of drug dependence.
- The Probation Office and the Essex County Prosecutor recommended denial, citing the amount/packaging of narcotics and the presumption against PTI for school-zone/distribution-type offenses. The prosecutor issued a detailed written rejection explaining aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Johnson filed a belated and incomplete appeal to the Law Division (three pages of a seven-page defense brief were missing); the trial court considered the merits despite noting the appeal was untimely.
- The trial court upheld the prosecutor's denial, concluding the decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion and Johnson had not shown compelling reasons to overcome the presumption against PTI.
- Johnson later pleaded guilty to possession of heroin and received two years' probation; he appealed the PTI denial to the Appellate Division, raising due process, timeliness/ineffective assistance, and improper application of PTI presumptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial based on incomplete/missing brief and lack of oral argument (due process) | Prosecutor: rejection was properly documented; trial court considered the full record and issued merits ruling | Johnson: court deprived him of due process by deciding on an incomplete brief and without oral argument | No due process violation; appellate court found omitted pages added no new material facts/arguments and no prejudice from missing pages or lack of oral argument |
| Untimely PTI appeal and ineffective assistance for missing brief pages | State: appeal was procedurally barred as untimely (filed well after 10-day rule) | Johnson: good cause existed for time enlargement and, alternatively, counsel was ineffective for submitting an incomplete brief | Timeliness argument failed because trial court ruled on the merits; ineffective assistance claim rejected because no prejudice shown—court decided merits regardless |
| Prosecutor applied presumptions against PTI (school-zone and sale/distribution presumptions) | Prosecutor: Caliguiri and PTI Guidelines justify a presumption against diversion for school-zone/distribution allegations | Johnson: presumptions inapplicable to his third-degree school-zone charge, to mere intent-to-distribute (not an actual sale), and undermined by statutory changes | Presumptions were properly applied; Caliguiri remains binding and presumption against diversion for such charges stands; Johnson's challenge to the presumptions raised for first time on appeal and is unpersuasive |
| Merits — whether compelling reasons exist to override presumption and admit to PTI | State: aggravating factors (nature of offense, amount/packaging, societal interest) outweigh mitigators; prosecutor reasonably weighed factors | Johnson: youth, education/employment, lack of prior record, and non-use of heroin are compelling and idiosyncratic reasons for PTI | Denial upheld: prosecutor made individualized, documented assessment; defendant failed to show compelling, idiosyncratic reasons or a patent and gross abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 25 (1999) (school-zone distribution charges create a presumption against PTI diversion)
- State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (prosecutor's PTI decision entitled to substantial deference; overturned only for patent and gross abuse of discretion)
- State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (1995) (defendant must show idiosyncratic/compelling reasons to overcome PTI presumptions)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (ineffective assistance claims ordinarily require evidence outside the trial record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)