STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MINJIN OH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1611-12T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MINJIN OH,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

October 23, 2013

Argued October 16, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Alvarez.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 10-10-1555.

Steven D. Altman argued the cause for appellant (Benedict and Altman, attorneys; Mr. Altman and Philip Nettl, on the brief).

Joie Piderit, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Andrew C. Carey, Acting Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Brian D. Gillet, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; Susan L. Berkow, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Minjin Oh appeals from the rejection of his application to the Pre-Trial Intervention Program (PTI). We affirm.

After the prosecutor's office rejected his application, defendant appealed to the Law Division. In a comprehensive oral opinion issued on October 3, 2011, the trial judge considered the prosecutor's decision, as well as the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e. The judge found no gross and patent abuse of the prosecutor's discretion in rejecting defendant from PTI. See State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246-47 (1995).

On this appeal, defendant once again argues that "the State's decision to reject defendant from Pre-trial Intervention was a patent and gross abuse of discretion, because defendant presented compelling reasons for his acceptance." Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we cannot agree. Defendant's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court.

Affirmed.