State v. Sean Bell (070736), 217 N.J. 336

Background

In 2007 Sean Bell was indicted on second-degree and third-degree aggravated-assault charges arising from a 2006 fight; he did not apply to PTI pretrial on counsel's advice that the second-degree count made him ineligible.
A 2009 superseding indictment charged the same offenses; co-defendant Thomas Schwab applied for and was admitted to PTI (with victim consent and in exchange for testimony at Bell’s trial).
At trial the court dismissed the second-degree count at the close of the State’s case and a jury convicted Bell of third-degree attempted aggravated assault on March 18, 2010.
After the verdict but before sentencing Bell applied for PTI; the prosecutor denied the application citing statutory factors and untimeliness; the trial court nevertheless admitted Bell to PTI over the prosecutor’s objection.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding PTI applications must be made prior to trial; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed, holding PTI is strictly a pretrial diversion and unavailable after a guilty verdict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant may be admitted to PTI after a jury conviction but before sentencing	State: PTI is limited by statute and rule to pretrial applications; post-verdict admission nullifies verdict and converts PTI into an improper sentencing alternative	Bell: Post-verdict PTI is permissible in circumstances where pretrial ineligibility (e.g., charged second-degree count) is removed; prosecutor’s denial was an abuse of discretion and co-defendant’s admission shows disparate treatment	PTI is a pretrial diversionary program only; post-verdict admission after a guilty verdict is not permitted; the conviction stands and the case is remanded for sentencing
Whether rule/statutory timing (R. 3:28(h) and N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12) bars post-trial PTI applications	State: Rule and statute require application prior to trial (no later than 28 days after indictment); preserving speedy and administrative processes favors pretrial resolution	Bell: Reliance on Halm and similar authorities permits post-trial application where circumstances change (e.g., dismissal of blocking charges)	The Court reasons PTI’s nature and rules require pretrial application; timing requirements reflect legislative and doctrinal intent and bar post-verdict enrollment
Whether the prosecutor grossly abused discretion in denying PTI	Bell: Prosecutor’s differential treatment compared to co-defendant was arbitrary given changed circumstances and victim’s partial withdrawal of objection	State: Prosecutor reasonably considered statutory factors including victim opposition, violent nature of offense, and need for prosecution	The Appellate Division’s factual finding that prosecutor did not grossly abuse discretion is affirmed in substance; but the dispositive ground is PTI’s pretrial nature
Whether State v. Halm controls to allow post-conviction PTI	Bell: Halm permits PTI application after jury findings in some circumstances	State: Halm is distinguishable; Halm involved a timely pretrial PTI application	The Supreme Court disavows any reading of Halm that permits post-verdict PTI and declines to follow it to that extent

Key Cases Cited

State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85 (establishing statewide PTI implementation and emphasizing rehabilitation as primary, pretrial purpose)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (discussing limits on post-charge relief and the role of PTI within charging function)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (characterizing PTI as a diversionary program to avoid prosecution)
State v. Brooks, 175 N.J. 215 (describing PTI as an alternative charging/disposition mechanism consistent with public interest)
State v. Halm, 319 N.J. Super. 569 (App. Div.) (discussed and limited by the Court; not followed to the extent it permits post-verdict PTI)
State v. Frangione, 369 N.J. Super. 258 (App. Div.) (post-conviction or post-reduction PTI application found procedurally improper)