The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: In sum, we deem an augmented statement of reasons to be adequate to permit meaningful judicial review, thus ensuring the constitutional application of the JLA and Guidelines. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s remaining constitutional arguments.
Accordingly, we remand for the PCR court to develop the factual record, by requiring the prosecutor to provide an explanation for the decision to withhold a pre-indictment plea offer in accordance with this opinion. The PCR judge shall review the explanation provided by the prosecutor and determine whether the prosecutor’s discretion was exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner as to warrant further judicial relief. We offer no opinion on whether withholding a pre-indictment plea offer in this case was inappropriate, or whether defendant suffered any prejudice from that decision.
We leave to the PCR judge’s discretion whether to convene an evidentiary hearing (a PCR court’s decision to proceed without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion), or instead rely on a written statement of reasons to be provided by the prosecutor. We also leave to the PCR judge’s discretion whether to require additional briefs or oral argument. The remand proceedings shall be completed within forty-five days of the issuance of this opinion.
The trial court’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
The defendant will have an uphill battle moving forward. There are very deferential standards that apply to the prosecutor’s and judge’s decisions to withhold a pre-indictment offer and to affirm that decision to do so. To prevail, the defendant will have to demonstrate that the prosecution and/or trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court misapplies the law and/or makes a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.
