Thisopinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAJUAN COPPER, a/k/a DAJUAN COOPER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.


                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0134-16T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DAJUAN COPPER, a/k/a DAJUAN
COOPER,

     Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________

              Argued November 15, 2017 – Decided December 18, 2017

              Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Manahan.

              On appeal from the Superior Court of New
              Jersey,   Law  Division,   Somerset County,
              Indictment No. 14-12-0779.

              Joshua D. Sanders, Assistant Deputy Public
              Defender, argued the cause for appellant
              (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney;
              Joshua D. Sanders, on the brief).

              Perry Farhat, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
              cause for respondent (Michael H. Robertson,
              Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Perry
              Farhat, on the brief).


PER CURIAM

        Defendant DaJuan Copper appeals from his February 5, 2016

judgment      of   conviction    after    pleading    guilty    to   third-degree
uttering a fraudulent instrument, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(3), and

fourth-degree attempted theft by deception, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and

20-4.   He was sentenced to probation for twelve months.            He now

argues that we should reverse the court's November 9, 2015 order

affirming the denial of defendant's Pretrial Intervention (PTI)

application by both the Program director and prosecutor. Defendant

argues the court's reliance on the prosecutor's representation of

defendant's juvenile record without substantiating documentation

was reversible error.        Defendant does not dispute the nature of

his juvenile adjudications or that, if demonstrated, they were an

appropriate reason to deny entrance into PTI.         We affirm.

     Defendant raises the following argument on appeal:

           POINT I: BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE'S RULING WAS
           BASED   UPON    THE    STATE'S   UNSUBSTANTIATED
           ALLEGATIONS INSTEAD OF SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE
           EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THIS MATTER MUST BE
           REMANDED     TO     THE    TRIAL    COURT    FOR
           RECONSIDERATION OF THE PTI APPEAL ABSENT THESE
           UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS.       (RAISED BUT NOT
           RULED ON BELOW).

     PTI     is    "a   diversionary   program   through   which   certain

offenders are able to avoid criminal prosecution by receiving

early rehabilitative services expected to deter future criminal

behavior."        State v. Baynes, 
148 N.J. 434, 441 (1997) (quoting

State v. Nwobu, 
139 N.J. 236, 240 (1995)).         Admission into PTI is

"based on a recommendation by the criminal division manager, as

Director of the PTI Program, with the consent of the prosecutor."

                                       2                           A-0134-16T3
Ibid.   (citing R. 3:28(c)(1)).        The New Jersey Supreme Court "has

provided criteria for making PTI decisions in its Guidelines for

Operation of Pretrial Intervention."          Ibid.

      The    Rules    of   Evidence    are   relaxed   for   a   hearing      on

admissibility into the PTI Program.           N.J.R.E. 101(a)(2)(C).         PTI

hearings "need not follow all of the formalities of a criminal

trial nor be limited by the strict rules of evidence."              State v.

Devatt, 
173 N.J. Super. 188, 194 (App. Div. 1980).

      "A prosecutor's decision is to be afforded great deference.

In fact, the level of deference which is required is so high that

it   has    been    categorized   as   'enhanced   deference'     or    'extra

deference.'"       Baynes, 
148 N.J. at 443 (quoting State v. Kraft, 
264 N.J. Super. 106, 111 (App. Div. 1993)). "[A] prosecutor's decision

to reject a PTI applicant 'will rarely be overturned.'"                   Ibid.

(quoting State v. Wallace, 
146 N.J. 576, 585 (1996).              The scope

of judicial review is severely limited and exists "to check only

the most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness."                Kraft,


264 N.J. at 111 (quoting State v. Demarco, 
107 N.J. 562, 566

(1987)).

      "A reviewing court may order a defendant into PTI over the

prosecutor's objection, only if the defendant can 'clearly and

convincingly establish that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction

admission into the program was based on a patent and gross abuse


                                       3                               A-0134-16T3
of . . . discretion.'"   Baynes, 
148 N.J. at 444 (quoting Wallace,


146 N.J. at 582) (amended in original).   Ordinarily, an abuse of

discretion:

          will be manifest if defendant can show that a
          prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon
          a consideration of all relevant factors, (b)
          was based upon a consideration of irrelevant
          or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to
          a clear error in judgment. In order for such
          an abuse of discretion to rise to the level
          of "patent and gross," it must further be
          shown that the prosecutorial error complained
          of will clearly subvert the goals underlying
          Pretrial Intervention.

          [Ibid. (quoting State v. Bender, 
80 N.J. 84,
          93 (1979).]

     Defendant argues that the trial court erred in affirming the

State's decision to deny defendant's PTI application because the

trial court relied on the State's unsubstantiated allegations in

its brief regarding defendant's prior juvenile adjudications and

alleged gang affiliation.   Defendant states that "[n]o evidence

was offered into the record to establish any of these allegations

by any quantum or quality of proof."

     The State notes that it provided defendant with discovery,

including his juvenile record, prior to the PTI appeal hearing.

Although defendant raised the issue that the prosecutor did not

provide the court with a copy of the juvenile record, he never

challenged the accuracy of the State's representations.         The

specific information regarding defendant's juvenile record, which

                                 4                        A-0134-16T3
we do not detail here based on its confidentiality, 
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-

60; R. 1:38-3, was known by both parties.              The court had access

to that information through court records.             N.J.R.E. 201(b).

     Our Supreme Court has held that "[t]here is no question that

'[t]he extent to which the applicant's crime constitutes part of

a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior' is relevant to a

prosecutor's consideration of a [PTI] application."                    State v.

K.S., 
220 N.J. 190, 201 (2015) (quoting 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(8)).

"Anti-social behavior includes 'not only serious criminal acts,

but less serious conduct.'"         Ibid. (quoting State v. Brooks, 
175 N.J. 215, 227 (2002)).

     In K.S. the Court reversed the denial of defendant's admission

into PTI because the defendant's prior juvenile and adult arrests

resulted    in   dismissals   and    the   behavior      was    not   otherwise

substantiated.     Id. at 202.       We see no benefit here to remanding

the matter for the court to review defendant's juvenile court

record     reflecting    adjudications     and    admissions     as    to    gang

affiliation,     which   defendant    does       not   deny    are    accurately

described in the prosecutor's brief.

     Affirmed.




                                      5                                 A-0134-16T3