106, 111, 625 A.2d 579 (App.Div.1993) (“[I]t is the fundamental responsibility of the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute ____”). It is fairly understood that the prosecutor has great discretion in selecting whom to prosecute and whom to divert to an alternative program, such as PTI. [State v.] Leonardis [Leonardis II], 73 N.J. [360,] 381, 375 A.2d 607 [(1977)]. The prosecutor’s discretion is not unbridled, however. If a 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 of ... discretion,” Leonardis II, supra, 73 N.J. at 382, 375 A.2d 607, a reviewing court may overrule the prosecutor and order a defendant admitted to PTI. See also Dalglish, supra, 86 N.J. 503, 432 A.2d 74 (<HOLDING>). A “patent and gross abuse of discretion” is
holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard applies after the adoption of the statewide program as part of the 1979 code of criminal justice recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion