STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN G. MCINTYRE, JR.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2183-05T42183-05T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN G. MCINTYRE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 1, 2006 - Decided November 27, 2006

Before Judges Parker and Yannotti.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Accusation No. 02-09-0575.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stephen A. Caruso, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney for respondent (Karen Fiorelli, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant John G. McIntyre, Jr., appeals from termination of his participation in the Pretrial Intervention program (PTI), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12. A judgment of conviction was entered on August 12, 2005, after he pled guilty to one count of third degree practicing dentistry without a license. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-30a. He was sentenced to three years probation concurrent to a probationary sentence imposed in Pennsylvania for other offenses.

Defendant was originally admitted into the PTI program on October 24, 2002. Three days earlier, on October 21, 2002, however, defendant had been charged with three counts of theft by deception, receiving stolen property, practicing dentistry without a license and two counts of tampering with public records in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. On July 24, 2003, he pled guilty to theft by deception, receipt of stolen property, tampering with public records and violating the Professional and Occupational Code. He was sentenced to eleven to twenty-three months in jail and five years probation. He was terminated from PTI on May 5, 2005, after a hearing, pursuant to R. 3:28(c)(3) because of his convictions during the supervisory period.

In this appeal, defendant argues:

POINT ONE

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING DEFENDANT FROM PTI

The basis for defendant's conviction for practicing dentistry without a license in New Jersey is not being challenged. His license in New Jersey had been suspended, but he continued to practice. Rather, in this appeal, he argues that it was the State's responsibility to know about the Pennsylvania charges and that he did not deceive anyone when he was interviewed. He further argues that PTI should be terminated only for subsequent offenses, not for offenses committed prior to his admission into PTI.

We have carefully considered the record in light of defendant's arguments and the applicable law and we are satisfied that his arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant consideration in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Nevertheless, we add the following comment.

Whether the State knew of the charges pending against defendant when he applied for and was admitted to PTI is immaterial to his termination from PTI. See State v. Fenton, 221 N.J. Super. 16, 24-26 (Law Div. 1987) (holding that an unadjudicated charge is not sufficient ground to terminate PTI). His convictions during the supervisory period, however, are grounds for termination. State v. Pellegrino, 254 N.J. Super. 117, 120-21 (App. Div. 1992) (holding that the defendant's conviction after a guilty plea "clearly violated the PTI program and conditions.")

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2183-05T4

November 27, 2006