STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW J. CLAVON mdash;&

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6384-06T46384-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDREW J. CLAVON,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted February 1, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Lisa and Coburn.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 06-01-0046-I.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Abby P. Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen E. Raymond, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Andrew J. Clavon, entered into a negotiated plea agreement after he was denied admission into the pretrial intervention program ("PTI"). The plea resolved a three count indictment charging fourth degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(a)(Count 1); third degree resisting arrest by physical force or violence, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3)(a)(Count 2); and third degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(5)(a) (Count 3). Defendant pled guilty to the second count and a judgment of conviction was entered on February 16, 2007, which imposed probation for one-year, waived defendant's right to appeal, but preserved his right to challenge the order denying him admission into PTI.

On appeal, defendant contends that the prosecutor committed a gross abuse of discretion because the denial "contained no individualized evaluation." That assertion is belied by the prosecutor's rejection letter dated July 17, 2006, which includes a rather extensive discussion of defendant's individual characteristics, which the prosecutor acknowledged were mostly positive. The same may be said of the PTI Director's letter of denial.

Consequently, we are satisfied that defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge LeBon in her thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion of September 19, 2006.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-6384-06T4

February 19, 2010