The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: The court also placed undue emphasis on the conviction for which the person is being sentenced. As the Manual makes clear, early intervention is encouraged and the court may admit a person to Recovery Court without a guilty plea in place. Here, Jessica was charged with third- and fourth-degree crimes and she could have applied for Recovery Court based on these charges. As the Manual makes clear, a defendant may plea bargain to become eligible for Recovery Court, conveying an intent to permit more–not fewer–applicants. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jessica reduced her charge to a PDP offense. It is inconsistent with the spirit of Recovery Court that someone who is eligible for Track Two based on their initial charges would become ineligible because the State agrees to accept a plea to a lesser charge.
The court’s reliance on the removal of the term “offender” in amendments to the Manual is also misplaced. The drafters replaced “offender” with “defendant,” a more neutral term which clearly describes anyone charged with a criminal or non-criminal offense. We fundamentally disagree with the conclusion the drafters sought to convey an intent to exclude DP and PDP offenders based on such a subtle change in the face of clearly expressed eligibility criteria which included no such provision.
We are similarly unpersuaded by the court’s and the Prosecutor’s concerns that permitting DP and PDP offenders to enter Recovery Court would unduly expand eligibility to municipal court defendants. Jessica was within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and was not being sentenced in municipal court. Thus, whether she, or anyone else, could enter Recovery Court in municipal court was plainly not at issue, and should not have impaired the court’s analysis.
For a municipal court defendant to enter Recovery Court, their case would have to be prosecuted by the county prosecutor’s office. That is because the Recovery Court Teams are all located at the Superior Court level. A county prosecutor declaring jurisdiction over a municipal court case is rare, but permissible, since county prosecutors have discretionary jurisdiction over non-indictable offenses.
