SHIRIN STALLINGS VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0037-18T2
SHIRIN STALLINGS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
Submitted November 19, 2019 – Decided December 11, 2019
Before Judges Accurso and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Shirin Stallings, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Shirin Stallings appeals from a final decision of the Parole Board
revoking her release status on a mandatory three-year term of parole
supervision imposed pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2, and setting a thirteen-month future eligibility term. Stallings'
release was revoked for violating a special condition imposed by the Board
that she successfully complete the Program for Returning Offenders with
Mental Illness Safely and Effectively (PROMISE) at Garrett House. Stallings
waived counsel, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.14(c)(2), and a probable cause hearing,
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.7(c)(7). She admitted having been discharged from the
PROMISE program but insisted her discharge was based on an inaccurate
report of her employment while enrolled in the program, and that the staff
member who prepared her discharge summary was terminated shortly
afterward for misconduct.
No one from the PROMISE program testified at the revocation hearing.
The program's records contain contradictory information about the reasons for
Stallings' failure to maintain employment. Because her failure to maintain
employment appears to have been a critical factor in Stallings' discharge from
the program, we cannot find the evidence presented was adequate to support a
clear and convincing finding that Stallings "seriously or persistently violated
A-0037-18T2
2
the conditions" of her release status, as required by N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b)
and N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d). Accordingly, we vacate the revocation of
Stallings' release status and remand for a new revocation hearing.
In the hearing officer's summary of the revocation hearing, he noted that
Stallings' parole officer testified that Stallings completed the treatment phase
of the PROMISE program and obtained employment. PROMISE records
indicate that Stallings completed "both Moving on and W.R.A.P. Groups," as
well as a job readiness program and was enrolled in "IOP group and individual
sessions," a cognitive skills training course designed to teach "relapse
prevention and planning." Stallings was also reported to have participated in
"Life Skills, Thinking for a Change, CALM and Healthy Relationships,"
displaying "good participation during group sessions and . . . some positive
insight during group and individual sessions."
The parole officer further testified, however, in accord with certain
records from the program, that Stallings lost her job after two weeks "for
allegedly fighting with a co-worker." The parole officer testified that Stallings
"was then returned to the treatment phase of the program." Again, relying on
the program's records, the parole officer testified that Stallings "continued to
display noncompliant behavior and incur infractions," including but not limited
A-0037-18T2
3
to "refusing to obey staff, disrespecting staff, unauthorized use of cell phone,
refusal to comply with treatment and using obscene and/or abusive language."
In addition the program's records reflected that Stallings reported to staff she
had smoked "K-2," a synthetic marijuana, in the facility's bathroom.
Stallings testified she had only worked at one place and was terminated
for lack of work, not fighting. She acknowledged several rules infractions but
claimed she only told staff she smoked K-2 to get help for another program
participant who had and needed immediate medical attention. Stallings
claimed she repeatedly requested a drug test to confirm her false report, but the
program refused and her parole officer did not respond to her calls. Stallings
also claimed a staff member asked Stallings to provide the staff member with
Stallings' urine so the staff member could pass the urine off as her own when
drug tested.
After hearing the evidence, the hearing officer recommended revocation
of Stallings' supervision status. Although concluding Stallings demonstrated
"noncompliant conduct" and was discharged from the PROMISE program after
two months, the hearing officer did not reference any of the testimony, making
it impossible to discern what he credited. Instead, he simply concluded "based
on the testimony provided, [Stallings] not only minimized her behavior, [she]
A-0037-18T2
4
also demonstrated that she does not yield the motivation and/or insight to
address the same."
After reviewing the hearing officer's summary, a two-member Board
panel concurred "with the findings of fact by the Hearing Officer." The panel
found there was clear and convincing evidence to conclude Stallings violated a
special condition of her parole by failing to successfully complete the
PROMISE program. The panel revoked Stallings' supervisory status and
imposed a thirteen-month future eligibility term.
In Stallings' appeal to the full Board, she alleged the person who
completed her discharge summary at the PROMISE program, the same person
Stallings alleged had asked for her urine so that she could pass it off as her
own, had since been fired for misconduct. Stallings also pointed out the
contradictory information in the PROMISE records about her employment.
She alleged the information in the discharge summary that Stallings had been
terminated for fighting with a co-worker was false and inconsistent with other
information in the records that she had been laid off for lack of work. As to
the allegation about her having admitted smoking K-2, Stallings claimed her
probation officer testified at the hearing she had been on vacation when the
incident occurred and unable to address it. Stallings claimed the hearing
A-0037-18T2
5
officer stated he would strike the allegation from the record and not consider it
in making his recommendation.
In its final decision, the full Board found "the Board panel reviewed and
considered all relevant facts pertaining to [Stallings'] violations of the
conditions of . . . mandatory supervision" and found "clear and convincing
evidence" that Stallings violated a special condition of her parole by failing to
complete the PROMISE program. The Board found "upon review of the
electronic recording" of the revocation hearing 1 that there was no evidence to
support Stallings' claim she falsely reported using K-2, but it made no mention
of Stallings' allegation of the parole officer's testimony on the point and did
not address her claim that the hearing officer determined to disregard that
infraction in rendering his recommendation. Instead, the Board found
Stallings' "denial of K-2 use and accusations of staff misconduct were
considered by the hearing officer," who "expressly noted his consideration of
this information as part of the record of your hearing."
The Board concluded the Board panel "appropriately reviewed the facts
of Stallings' case, has documented that clear and convincing evidence exists
1
We have not been provided with the recording and it is not listed in the
Board's Statement of Items Comprising the Record on appeal.
A-0037-18T2
6
that [Stallings has] seriously violated the conditions of [her] mandatory
supervision and that revocation of [her] mandatory supervision status is
desirable." The Board "agree[d] with those findings and conclusions and
[found Stallings'] contention that the Board panel failed to consider the entire
record in this matter, to be without merit."
Stallings appeals, raising one issue:
THE DECISION OF THE STATE PAROLE BOARD
TO REVOKE PAROLE WAS ARBITRARY AND
UNJUST, AND VIOLATED LEGISLATIVE
POLICY; THE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER
ALL OF THE FACTS AND UTILIZED
INACCURATE INFORMATION. THE DECISION
SHOULD BE SET ASIDE (EXHIBITS A1
THROUGH A5 AND A9 THROUGH A12)
"A person who has been sentenced to a term of parole supervision and is
on release status in the community pursuant to" N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 is "subject
to the provisions and conditions set by the appropriate [B]oard panel."
N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51b(a). That statute also gives the Board authority "to
revoke the person's release status and return the person to custody for the
remainder of the term or until it is determined, in accordance with regulations
adopted by the [B]oard, that the person is again eligible for release . . . ." Ibid.
The Board must exercise its authority to revoke release status "in
accordance with the procedures and standards" codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4 -
A-0037-18T2
7
123.59 through N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.65. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51b(a). The
statutory standards referenced permit revocation only on proof by clear and
convincing evidence that the person "has seriously or persistently violated the
conditions," N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b) and N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d), or that the
person has been "convicted of a crime" while released, N.J.S.A. 30:4-
123.60(c); see also N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.12(c)(1) to (2).
Revocation hearings are conducted by a hearing officer, who must make
a record and provide reasons for his or her recommendation to a two-member
panel of the Board in writing. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63. The hearing officer's
written summary is given to the two-member panel and the parolee or her
attorney, who may file exceptions with the panel within seven days. N.J.A.C.
10A:71-7.16. The panel makes its decision after reviewing the hearing
officer's summary, the exceptions and the record, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d),
(e); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.16 to -7.17B, which decision must be memorialized in
writing, setting forth "particular reasons . . . and the facts relied upon,"
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.18. Where parole is revoked, the two-member panel's
decision is appealable to the Board on several grounds, among them being the
panel's failure to consider material facts; its failure to document the clear and
convincing evidence of serious or persistent violations; and its entry of a
A-0037-18T2
8
decision "contrary to written Board policy or procedure." N.J.A.C. 10A:71 -
4.1(e)(1) to (3). Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(2), appeal to this court is from the
agency's final decision.
There is no question on this record that Stallings was discharged from
the PROMISE program. Stallings admitted it at the hearing. The only
question was why. Stallings claimed the main reason supporting her
discharge, that she was terminated from her job after two weeks for fighting ,
was false, as was her claim to a staff member to have smoked K-2, and that the
staff member who completed that discharge summary sought Stallings' urine to
pass off as the staff member's own and was subsequently discharged for
misconduct.2 Although the Board claims those points were considered by the
hearing officer, his failure to find any facts beyond Stallings' discharge from
the program for "noncompliant conduct" makes that claim unverifiable on this
record.
The PROMISE program discharge summary in the record provides
contradictory information of the reasons for Stallings' employment
2
In a letter to the Chairman of the Parole Board, Stallings claimed that a
senior investigator of the Parole Board's Office of Professional Standards,
whom she identified, was aware of the staff member's misconduct and
termination and could "provide more information."
A-0037-18T2
9
termination, in one place reporting she was terminated for fighting and in
another that she was terminated for lack of work. The hearing officer's failure
to state which version he credited and why, along with his failure to address
whether he believed Stallings' claim that she falsely reported use of K-2, or
determined not to consider it as Stallings asserts, makes it impossible to
determine whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Stallings
"seriously or persistently violated the conditions," of her parole, N.J.S.A. 30:4-
123.60(b) and N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d).3
That standard of proof requires evidence that persuades the fact finder
"that the truth of the contention is 'highly probable.'" In re Perskie, 207 N.J.
275, 290 (2011) (quoting 2 McCormick on Evidence § 340, at 487 (Broun ed.,
6th ed. 2006)). Stated differently, the evidence must be sufficient to "'produce
in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the
allegations sought to be established.'" In re Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240
(1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J. Super. 156, 162 (App. Div.
3
Whether Stallings' other rule infractions included in the discharge summary,
refusing to get out of bed and take medication on two occasions, once eating
pizza in the dormitory, walking out of sight of staff on a recreational walk,
using another participant's phone and refusing to hang up when asked, along
with being disrespectful to staff on those occasions, would support discharge
from the program, and thus that Stallings "seriously or persistently violated the
conditions," of her parole, is not addressed on this record.
A-0037-18T2
10
1960)). Even "evidence that is uncontroverted may nonetheless fail to meet
the elevated clear and convincing evidence standard." Perskie, 207 N.J. at
290.
This court defers to an agency decision if it is supported by the record
and not "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644,
657 (1999) (internal citation omitted). "[E]xercise of such deference is
premised on our confidence that there has been a careful consideration of the
facts in issue and appropriate findings addressing the critical issues in
dispute." Bailey v. Bd. of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001).
"[I]t is a fundamental of fair play that an administrative judgment express a
reasoned conclusion. A conclusion requires evidence to support it and
findings of appropriate definiteness to express it." N.J. Bell Tel. Co. v.
Commc'ns Workers of Am., 5 N.J. 354, 375 (1950).
The Legislature did not grant the Board unbridled discretion to revoke
the release status of a person subject to a term of NERA parole supervision.
Absent conviction of a crime, the Board has that authority only if the parolee
"has seriously or persistently violated the conditions of his parole." N.J.S.A.
30:4-123.60. A decision of a panel or Board revoking parole without an
articulation of the basis for revocation under the statutory standard has an
A-0037-18T2
11
appearance of unfairness that invites and requires careful scrutiny by a
reviewing court.
Because the hearing officer, whose "findings" were adopted by both the
panel and the Board, did not reference the proofs in concluding that Stallings
seriously or persistently violated the conditions of her parole, N.J.S.A. 30:4-
123.60, and thus failed to adequately explain his conclusion that Stallings
qualified for revocation under that standard, we vacate the revocation and
remand for a new hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of Stallings'
claims; we find only that the record is inadequate to support the Board's
conclusion that the facts support revocation.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0037-18T2
12