State v. Chen
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | A-1122-18T4,DOCKET NOS. A-1121-18T4,A-1123-18T4 |
| Citation | 465 N.J.Super. 274,242 A.3d 888 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samuel W. CHEN, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Colin P. Quinn, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael T. Santitoro, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Alan L. Zegas, argued the cause for appellants (Law Offices of Alan L. Zegas; Alan L. Zegas, of counsel and on the briefs; Joshua M. Nahum, Summit, on the briefs).
Nancy A. Hulett, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondents (Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor; Nancy A. Hulett, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Sumners, Geiger and Mitterhoff.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUMNERS, JR., J.A.D.
These consolidated appeals require us to determine whether the State can deny defendants' admission into the pretrial intervention program (PTI or program), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12, after they spurned the State's offer to consider admission if they agreed to serve time in jail; defendants had all been released on their own recognizance (ROR).
Defendants Samuel W. Chen, Colin P. Quinn, and Michael T. Santitoro were each indicted on one count of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(2), for starting a fire in a garbage disposal bin.
Unbeknownst to them, it contained a propane tank, resulting in an explosion causing significant damage to numerous cars and a fence. Over the ensuing four months, defendants refused the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office's (Prosecutor's Office) proposal that their PTI applications include an agreement to serve time in jail. Thereafter, on the same grounds, the Prosecutor's Office separately advised each defendant that their PTI applications were denied based upon factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12. Defendants subsequently entered into plea agreements in which they pled guilty to amended charges of third-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3. They each were sentenced to a four-year term of noncustodial probation.
Pursuing rights preserved in their plea agreements, defendants unsuccessfully appealed their PTI rejections to the Law Division. The court determined defendants did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Prosecutor's Office's refusal to admit them into PTI was "a patent and gross abuse of discretion or arbitrary and irrational."
Before us, defendants jointly argue:
We reverse. The Prosecutor's Office abused its discretion by tainting the PTI application process when it required defendants to agree to serve jail time as a means to gain admission. Imposing the condition of jail time for PTI admission is not expressly permitted or prohibited in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12, Rule 3:28, or the PTI Guidelines. We conclude, however, it is illegal because to vest such authority to the Prosecutor's Office would give it powers contrary to the Legislature's intent in creating the program. Accordingly, the trial court shall enter orders vacating defendants' guilty pleas and admitting them into PTI.
On November 19, 2016, recently graduated Rutgers University students Quinn and Santitoro, while under the influence of alcohol, took a textbook and set it on fire in a dumpster in the rear parking lot of their New Brunswick fraternity house.1 Quinn then lit a mattress that was in the dumpster. Chen, a member of the same fraternity and also a recent Rutgers University graduate, who had been drinking, joined the mischief by throwing pieces of drywall into the fire with Quinn and Santitoro.
The fire caused a propane tank concealed underneath the mattress to explode, resulting in burns to Quinn and Chen. After an unsuccessful attempt to put out the fire with a bucket of water, defendants fled. The fire spread, damaging the fraternity house fence and nine vehicles in the fraternity house parking lot and an adjacent parking lot. The fire department responded to the scene and extinguished the fire.
The day of the fire, each defendant was charged with one count of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(1), and one count of conspiracy to commit arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(1). They subsequently applied for PTI. On February 14, 2017, the Middlesex County Probation Department recommended to the Prosecutor's Office that defendants' applications be approved. Defendants had no juvenile or adult criminal history and were gainfully employed.
The Prosecutor's Office, however, did not agree. In initial discussions, according to Quinn's counsel's2 March 7 letter to the negotiating assistant prosecutor, defendants were advised they could be admitted into PTI if they served 180 days in county jail by agreeing to revoke their ROR status. Defendants counter-proposed performing 150 hours each of community service related to the offense such as working with victims of fires and volunteering with fire departments.
In a March 10 letter addressing concerns raised in a conversation with the assistant prosecutor related to the March 7 correspondence, defense counsel proposed no jail time if defendants performed community service at a prison and at one of six specified hospitals.
The assistant prosecutor rejected defendants' counter-offer but advised his office would sign off on PTI if defendants served thirty days in jail and performed 150 hours each of community service.
In an April 3 letter to the First Assistant Prosecutor, defense counsel memorialized the Prosecutor's Office's new proposal discussed in a March 20 meeting: that each defendant serve thirty days in jail, along with performing 150 hours of community service. Counsel requested reconsideration of the jail time condition. Additionally, counsel pointed out the difficulty in getting the trial court to "implement incarceration ... where [defendants] pose no flight risk and have attended all proceedings in their present ROR status[,]" and in finding "a [c]ounty or other prison facility [to] cooperate in this highly unusual approach."
While defendants' PTI applications were pending, the Prosecutor's Office presented the charges against them to a grand jury on April 13, 2017, resulting in the indictments.
Two months later, defendants advised the Prosecutor's Office of a potential way to satisfy the jail-time condition to gain PTI admission. In a June 9 letter to the First Assistant Prosecutor, counsel proposed downgrading defendants' charges to municipal court so they could enter into a weekend jail program, such as the Sheriff's Labor Assistance Program or Learning Assistance Program, and serve fifteen weekends in lieu of serving thirty consecutive days in county jail. The Prosecutor's Office rejected the proposal.
Each defendant was subsequently denied admission into PTI. The Prosecutor's Office's July 20 written rejection recited the following factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e) as weighing strongly against admission:
The letter made no mention of the parties' prior four months of negotiations regarding the Prosecutor's Office's demand that defendants serve jail time as a condition to enter PTI.
Defendants appealed the denial of their PTI applications to the Law Division. During argument before the trial judge, defendants contended the Prosecutor's Office conditioned their admission into PTI, which was illegal and tainted the PTI application process.
The Prosecutor's Office denied defendants' service of jail time was a condition for their PTI admission. The assistant prosecutor claimed the jail time negotiations The assistant prosecutor further asserted that jail time negotiations were "irrelevant," yet "a creative way maybe to resolve a problem," and that jail time "was not some quid pro quo" to get into PTI.
The parties also disputed the soundness of the reasons stated by the Prosecutor's Office in denying defendants' PTI applications; the Prosecutor's Office contended it looked at the totality of the offense in which defendants recklessly started a fire in a populated area and left the scene.
On February 26, 2018, the judge executed separate orders, together with separate but similar written decisions, denying each defendant's appeal. As to each defendant, the judge wrote:
While...
To continue reading
Request your trial