Guilty of Using Stolen Prescription Pad to Obtain Oxycodone

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1c0dxh-guilty-of-using-stolen-prescription-pad-to-obtain-oxycodone.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2 and at https://youtu.be/33-o7FlVYf0

The New Jersey Pretrial Intervention Program (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. Oguta, 468 N.J.Super. 100, 107 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 240 (1995)). Jason Mittleman appealed from an order denying his motion to compel his admission into the PTI program.

In State Of New Jersey v. Jason Mittleman, No. A-0925-20, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (June 22, 2022) the Chiropractor appealed the refusal to allow him in the PTI program.

FACTS

Mittleman is a chiropractor. In 2017, he was working at the Denville Medical and Sports Rehabilitation Center where he stole another doctor’s prescription pad. Over the next twenty-two months, Mittleman submitted false prescriptions to obtain thousands of oxycodone pills.

Mittleman’s theft and fraud came to light in 2019. During the ensuing police investigation, Mittleman admitted he stole the prescription pad, fraudulently filled out numerous prescriptions, and used those prescriptions to obtain oxycodone.

Mittleman was indicted for third-degree obtaining oxycodone by fraud; third-degree insurance fraud; third-degree receiving stolen property; and fourth-degree tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.

The PTI Program

Mittleman applied for admission into the PTI program. The Morris County Prosecutor’s Office rejected his application and set forth the reasons for that decision. An assistant prosecutor reviewed the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute and found ten aggravating factors, considered several mitigating factors, but determined that Mittleman was not a suitable candidate for the PTI program.

A Law Division judge heard arguments on Mittleman’s motion motion, denied the motion, and set forth the reason for that decision on the record. That same day, the Law Division judge entered an order denying Mittleman’s motion to compel his entry into the PTI program.

Guilty Plea

The following month, Mittleman pled guilty to third-degree insurance fraud. In accordance with the plea agreement, Mittleman was sentenced to one year probation with a condition that he surrender his chiropractic license during the probationary period. The other charges against Mittleman were dismissed.

Mittleman appealed from the order denying his motion to compel his entry into the PTI program. Mittleman’s arguments were rejected because they were not supported by the record.

DISCUSSION

Prosecutors are granted broad discretion to determine if any defendant, including Mittleman, should be diverted to PTI instead of being prosecuted. The scope of judicial review is severely limited by the statute.

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. A patent and gross abuse of discretion is a decision that has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice requires judicial intervention.

There is nothing in the record establishing that Mittleman had a lawful prescription for oxycodone. The material fact, which was undisputed, was that Mittleman fraudulently obtained oxycodone.

The prosecutor also considered Mittleman’s use of the oxycodone. In that regard, the prosecutor noted that Mittleman claimed he had ceased using oxycodone voluntarily and, therefore, the State noted that there was no clear demonstration of an addiction that could be better treated through rehabilitative programs like PTI.