State v. Bing, 091619 NJSUP, A-5096-17T1

Docket Nº:A-5096-17T1
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM S. BING, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Lauren Stephanie Michaels, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Caroline C. Galda, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assis...
Judge Panel:Before Judges Fisher and Gilson.
Case Date:September 16, 2019
Court:Superior Court of New Jersey
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM S. BING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-5096-17T1

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

September 16, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 10, 2019

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 17-02-0328.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Lauren Stephanie Michaels, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Caroline C. Galda, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Fisher and Gilson.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the denial of his pretrial intervention (PTI) application. Finding no ground that would permit judicial intervention into that prosecutorial determination, we affirm.

Defendant was indicted and charged with: third-degree possession of heroin, a controlled dangerous substance (CDS); third-degree CDS possession with the intent to distribute; third-degree CDS possession with the intent to distribute on or within 1000 feet of school property; second-degree CDS possession with the intent to distribute within 500 feet of public property; and fourth-degree resisting arrest by flight. In applying for PTI, defendant urged the fact that he had no prior convictions, as well as other mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor considered all those circumstances, as well as other aggravating circumstances, in ultimately adhering to the PTI program director's recommendation that the facts and circumstances relating to the second-degree charge warranted rejection.

In moving for relief in the trial court, defendant argued that the prosecutor placed undue reliance on his prior record, particularly the fact that he was once charged with conspiring to commit murder - for which he was acquitted - and other arrests, all of which resulted in dismissal. In her oral decision, however, the judge correctly observed that the prosecutor did not determine that defendant's...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP