JAMES WILLIAMS VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3882-19
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
_____________________
Submitted May 3, 2021 – Decided September 14, 2021
Before Judges Messano and Smith.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
James Williams, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Suzanne Davies, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
James Williams (Williams) appeals a final decision by the State Parole
Board (Board) denying parole and imposing a fourteen-month future eligibility
term. We affirm for the reasons set forth below.
On April 4, 2014, Williams pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated
assault with a firearm. He was sentenced to an eight-year term of
incarceration, with five years parole supervision. With regard to the
aggravated assault charge stemming from the robbery, Williams was sentenced
to an eighteen-month term of incarceration and five years of parole supervision
to run concurrently with the robbery charge. That same day, Williams also
pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for a 2013 incident which occurred while
he was in jail. On that charge, he received an eight-year term of incarceration
and five years of parole supervision to run concurrently with his robbery
sentence.
Prior to the instant charges, Williams had twelve previous adult arrests
resulting in four convictions. They included eluding law enforcement officers,
possession of controlled dangerous substances, and receiving stolen property.
The four convictions resulted in consecutive three-year incarceration terms.
Williams was paroled on the second sentence, but ultimately violated parole
and was returned to custody.
A-3882-19
2
During his incarceration for the April 4, 2014 convictions, Williams was
disciplined over time for a series of Department of Corrections (DOC) rules
infractions. The infractions he was found guilty of included theft, fighting,
disrupting the orderly running of the institution, and possession of anything
related to a security threat group. 1
On September 25, 2018, Williams completed his incarceration term and
was released to mandatory supervision. He was referred to the Community
Resource Center (CRC), a non-residential transitional program. Conditions of
the program included that he have an approved residence, obtain a job, remain
employed, and report to the CRC once per week. He initially complied, then
quit his job at a party rental company in late October. He next missed his
mandatory reporting two weeks in a row in November 2018. On November
26, 2018, the CRC terminated Williams from its program and referred him to a
residential program, Kintock-STEPS (Kintock) in Newark.
1
In December 2014, Williams was found guilty of charge *.153,
stealing/theft. In April 2015, Williams was found guilty of charge *.004,
fighting with another person and charge *.306, conduct which disrupts the
orderly running of the correctional institution. In September 2017, Williams
was found guilty of charge *.011, possession or exhibition of anything related
to a security threat group. Williams was also found guilty of two charges for
refusing work/assignment in April 2015 and May 2017.
A-3882-19
3
At Kintock, the intake officer advised Williams of the conditions for
successful completion of a residential program, which was a more intensive
level of supervision. Kintock stressed certain program conditions to Williams,
including that his work release pass was valid only for the location identified
on his pass. Further, he was informed that if Kintock could not account for his
whereabouts, he would be deemed an absconder, and a warrant would be
issued for his arrest. Most importantly, Kintock informed Williams that failure
to complete the program due to an unsuccessful discharge or absconding would
be considered a violation of parole and may result in his parole being revoked.
Williams informed the Kintock intake officer that he understood all of the
conditions and had no questions. Williams's expected program completion
date was February 24, 2019.
While under mandatory supervision at CRC and Kintock, Williams took
steps to turn his life around. He enrolled in and completed two courses, with
subjects that included family reunification, parenting, cognitive-behavioral
change, re-entry preparation, and "green technology."
On February 15, 2019, Williams called the residential facility at 5:25
p.m., informing them that he "just got on the bus" and that he was reporting
back to the program. Williams's reporting time at Kintock was 5:30 p.m.
A-3882-19
4
Williams had been working two weeks without incident and regularly took
public transportation. A Kintock staffer informed him that he had until 6:30
p.m. to report. Williams failed to return to the Kintock residential facility in a
timely manner.
Kintock discharged him immediately and a warrant for his arrest was
issued at 9:03 p.m. on February 15, 2019. The record shows Williams
apparently skipped work or left work early that day to visit his mother in the
hospital without receiving permission from Kintock for an unescorted or
escorted visit to the hospital. Inexplicably, he never returned to Kintock.
Williams was apprehended without incident on April 18, 2019 in Paterson.
Williams's mandatory supervision was revoked in a DOC hearing on July 11,
2019 and he was remanded to custody.
The Board conducted a parole eligibility hearing on February 29, 2020.
At the initial hearing, Williams challenged a panel member's right to
participate because the member participated in a 2007 parole hearing regarding
Williams. After the member stated on the record that their 2020 decision to
deny parole was not based "solely on the original charges," nor did they
"express any feelings regarding [Williams's] original offense," the panel
dismissed the argument and decided Williams' eligibility. The panel made
A-3882-19
5
detailed findings, addressing mitigating factors such as Williams's
participation in behavior-specific programs, his remaining infraction-free, and
favorable institutional adjustment. The panel found reasons for denial,
including but not limited to Williams's lengthy criminal history and his failure
to complete two community programs, CRC and Kintock. The Board issued a
final decision on April 22, 2020, adopting the findings of its panel and also
rejecting Williams's argument of improper conduct by the panel.
Williams appeals, arguing that the Board was arbitrary and capricious in
denying him parole and imposing a fourteen-month FET.
"Our role in reviewing an administrative agency's decision is limited."
Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87, 93 (App. Div. 2018)
(citing Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J.
1, 9 (2009)). "Judicial review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the
arbitrary and capricious standard that constrains other administrative action."
Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222-23 (2016). Accordingly, the
Board's decisions should be reversed "only if they are arbitrary and
capricious." Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino V), 166 N.J. 113, 201
(2001) (Baime, J., dissenting). We must uphold the Board's factual findings if
they "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in
A-3882-19
6
the whole record." Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J.
19, 24 (1998) (quoting N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534,
547 (App. Div. 1988)). According to our Supreme Court, a reviewing court
must determine:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policy, i.e., did the agency follow
the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial
evidence to support the findings on which the agency
based its action; and (3) whether in applying the
legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not
reasonably have been made on a showing of the
relevant factors.
[Trantino V, 166 N.J. at 172 (quoting Trantino IV, 154
N.J. at 24).]
In our review of the Board's action for arbitrariness, we must determine
whether the Board's factual finding could reasonably have been reached on
sufficient credible evidence in the whole record. Under this standard, the
agency's decision will be set aside "if there exists in the reviewing mind a
definite conviction that the determination below went so far wide of the mark
that a mistake must have been made." New Jersey State Parole Bd. v. Cestari,
224 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 1988). "This sense of 'wrongness' arises in
several ways, among which are the lack of inherently credible supporting
evidence, the obvious overlooking or underevaluation of crucial evidence or a
A-3882-19
7
clearly unjust result." Ibid. (quoting 613 Corp. v. State, Div. of State Lottery,
210 N.J. Super. 485, 495 (App. Div. 1986)).
Applying these well-established principles, we discern no basis to
overturn the Board's final decision. The Board considered the relevant facts
and submissions in revoking Williams's mandatory supervision status and
establishing a fourteen-month FET. The Board's determination is amply
supported by the record and consistent with controlling law. Its decision was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Williams's parole violations were
serious and persistent. He was unsuccessfully discharged from two mandatory
supervision programs. After getting discharged from CRC, he obtained a
second chance at Kintock. There he successfully completed important
coursework designed to assist him in his transition back to the community.
However, with slightly over a week to go until his graduation from the
program, he absconded on February 15 and never turned himself in. The
evidence was clear and convincing that he remained at-large and non-
compliant until April 8 when he was apprehended. Finally, the record shows
no facts which justify reversing the Board's decision based on Williams's
argument that a Board member improperly participated in the initial decision
simply because he served on Williams's parole review panel in 2007. To the
A-3882-19
8
extent we have not addressed any of Williams's arguments, we conclude they
are without sufficient merit to warrant discission in a written opinion. See R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3882-19
9