STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD PEPSNY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6562-04T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD PEPSNY,

Defendant.

 

ROBERT FRIEDLAND,

Appellant.

__________________________________________________

 

Submitted February 14, 2006 - Decided March 16, 2006

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Humphreys.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Monmouth County,

Indictment No. 04-10-0229.

Robert Friedland, appellant pro se.

Luis A. Valentin, Monmouth County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Edward J. Quigley,

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Robert Friedland signed a criminal complaint charging Richard Pepsny with giving false information to a law enforcement officer. The Monmouth County Prosecutor administratively dismissed the complaint on the ground of insufficient evidence.

Friedland filed a "notice of appeal" of the dismissal. The "appeal" was dismissed by Judge Uhrmacher. Thereafter Friedland pled guilty to passing a $450,000 bad check to Pepsny.

Friedland appeals the dismissal to this court. He argues in his brief that the Assistant Prosecutor who prosecuted him should not have signed the administrative dismissal because doing both created a conflict of interest. We disagree.

The Assistant Prosecutor did not have a conflict of interest. A prosecutor's primary interest is not to obtain convictions but to see that justice is done. State v. Zola, 112 N.J. 384, 426 (1988). A prosecutor may not prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. In re Loigman, 183 N.J. 133, 144 (2005). The Assistant Prosecutor was familiar with the matter and was, therefore, in a good position to determine whether Friedland's complaint was meritorious. His handling of both Friedland's prosecution and the administrative dismissal was not improper.

The Assistant Prosecutor's determination that the evidence was insufficient is entitled to great deference and is not subject to judicial review in the absence of arbitrary or corrupt conduct by the Prosecutor. State v. Ward, 303 N.J. Super. 47, 56 (App. Div. 1997). No such conduct has been shown here.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6562-04T3

March 16, 2006