STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WENDY L. LADOUCEUR (18-11-1526, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0184-19T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WENDY L. LADOUCEUR,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted January 12, 2021 – Decided January 26, 2021
Before Judges Haas and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 18-11-
1526.
Kahn, Gigliotti & Lehrfeld, LLC, attorneys for
appellant (Ross M. Gigliotti, on the brief).
Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Jennifer B. Paszkiewicz,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Wendy L. Ladouceur appeals from the Law Division's April
11, 2019 order, which denied her application for entry into the pre-trial
intervention (PTI) program. We affirm.
At approximately 6:45 p.m. on January 18, 2018, defendant drove her car
head-on into another vehicle. A witness who was driving behind defendant at
the time of the crash told the police that defendant's car was all over the road
and was weaving in and out of the oncoming traffic. The witness saw
defendant's car cross the double yellow line and strike the victims' vehicle. The
driver of the other car suffered a broken finger on her left hand and the driver's
ten-year-old son sustained a head wound that required thirteen stitches to close.
At the scene, defendant appeared disoriented and confused. Initially,
defendant told the police she did not remember what happened. However, she
soon admitted that she was drunk and the police detected the odor of alcoholic
beverages on her breath. The police drove her to the hospital where a blood test
revealed that defendant's blood alcohol content was .286%.
A Burlington County grand jury later returned an indictment charging
defendant with two counts of fourth-degree assault by auto, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
1(c)(2). The police also charged defendant with driving while intoxicated
(DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.
A-0184-19T2
2
Defendant applied for admission to the PTI program. The PTI Director
for Criminal Case Management denied the application in a January 31, 2019
letter. The PTI Director explained that after considering "the totality of [the]
circumstances, including the injuries to both [of the victims]," the driver's
"strong objection" to the application, defendant's cooperation in the process, her
full-time employment, and her remorse, the Director could not provide a positive
recommendation on the application.
Defendant filed a motion with the Law Division to appeal her rejection
from the PTI Program. Pursuant to State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246 (1995),
the county prosecutor declined to accept defendant's application into the PTI
program, relying upon the reasons for rejection articulated by the PTI Director.
Following oral argument, Judge Terrence R. Cook rendered a comprehensive
oral decision confirming the denial of defendant's application.
Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to one count of assault by auto and to
DWI.1 Pursuant to her negotiated plea, Judge Cook sentenced defendant to two
years of probation on the assault by auto charge, subject to certain conditions
listed in the Judgment of Conviction. On the DWI conviction, the judge imposed
1
The second count of assault by auto was dismissed pursuant to the plea
agreement.
A-0184-19T2
3
a ninety-day driver's license suspension and appropriate monetary penalties.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:
POINT I: THE LOWER COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION BY AFFIRMING THE [PTI]
DIRECTOR'S REJECTION OF DEFENDANT'S
TIMELY APPLICATION TO THE PTI PROGRAM,
AND FAILING TO PROPERLY APPLY [N.J.S.A.
2C:43-12(a)(1)].
I(a): [The] [l]ower court erred because it did not
correctly and properly apply [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
12(a)(1)].
I(b): The PTI Director's rejection of defendant's
PTI application and attached mischaracterization
of defendant's criminal conduct prejudiced
defendant before any dispositive proceeding.
(Not raised below).
POINT II: THE REJECTION OF DEFENDANT'S
TIMELY APPLICATION TO THE PTI PROGRAM,
WITH [THE] LOWER COURT'S APPROVAL,
CONSTITUTES AN INFRINGEMENT OF
DEFENDANT'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
BECAUSE THE REJECTION ITSELF
CONSTITUTES AN EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNITIVE
MEASURE IN NATURE, AND IS NOT
PROPORTIONAL TO THE OFFENSE COMMITTED.
(Not raised below).
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable
legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant
A-0184-19T2
4
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the
reasons expressed by Judge Cook in his well-reasoned oral opinion. We add
the following brief comments.
Our scope of review of a prosecutor's decision to deny admission to PTI
is "severely limited." State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003) (citations omitted).
"In order to overturn a prosecutor's rejection, a defendant must 'clearly and
convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision constitutes a patent and
gross abuse of discretion.'" State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507, 520 (2008) (citation
omitted). "A patent and gross abuse of discretion is defined as a decision that
'has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that
fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention.'" Ibid. (citation
omitted).
Applying these principles, we discern no patent or gross abuse of
discretion by the PTI Director or the prosecutor under the circumstances of this
case. We are satisfied that Judge Cook properly addressed the relevant factors
and considered the appropriate standard in denying defendant's application to be
admitted to PTI.
Affirmed.
A-0184-19T2
5