DAVID COLLINS VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3128-18T2
DAVID COLLINS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted July 28, 2020 – Decided August 5, 2020
Before Judges Sumners and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
David Collins, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
David Collins appeals the February 27, 2019 final agency decision of the
New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying him parole and imposing a
twenty-month Future Eligibility Term (FET). We affirm.
On December 15, 2016, Collins pled guilty to second-degree endangering
the welfare of a child by storing or maintaining an item depicting child
pornography. On November 3, 2017, he was sentenced to a five-year prison
term. However, on April 5, 2018, his sentence was amended to remove his
sentence to the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (Avenel).
On December 31, 2018, Collins became eligible for parole for the first
time. At his August 30, 2018 hearing, the parole officer referred the matter to a
two-member Board panel.
Collins was denied parole by the two-member panel on October 1, 2018.
In determining there was a reasonable likelihood Collins would violate
conditions of his parole if released, the panel cited: the facts and circumstances
of the offense; prior offense record; prior incarceration did not deter criminal
behavior; insufficient problem resolution, particularly noting, a lack of insight
into criminal behavior, gambling problem not sufficiently addressed, and very
weak post-release plan given he would have no responsibility while receiving
SSI disability; and risk assessment evaluation. The panel also acknowledged
A-3128-18T2
2
mitigating factors: minimal offense record; participation in institutional
programs; and favorable institutional adjustment. In addition, the panel
established a twenty-month FET.
On February 6, 2019, while Collins' appeal to the full Board was pending,
the two-member panel administratively amended its October 1, 2018 decision to
add the mitigating factors of: infraction free; and attempt made to enroll and
participate in programs but not admitted. The panel noted these factors "were
in the record at the time [Collins'] case was assessed and . . . were relied upon
by the [panel] in rendering the decision to deny [him] parole." Also, while his
appeal was pending, Collins was granted minimum custody status.
On February 27, 2019, the full Board issued its decision affirming the
panel's decision denying Collins' parole and imposing a twenty-month FET.
Before us, Collins argues:
POINT I
THE [NEW JERSEY] PAROLE BOARD DID NOT
ADHERE TO N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53, REQUIRING
THEY SHOW THE APPELLANT DID NOT
COOPERATE IN HIS OWN REHABILITATION, OR
IS LIKELY TO VIOLATE CONDITIONS OF
PAROLE IF RELEASED.
A-3128-18T2
3
POINT II
THE REVIEWING PANEL FAILED TO CONSIDER
MATERIAL FACTS DURING THE OCTOBER 1,
2018 INTERVIEW, REQUIRING A
"CLARIFICATION" ON FEBRUARY 6, 2019,
WHEREBY MORE MITIGATING FACTORS WERE
FOUND.
POINT III
THE APPELLANT IS MEDICALLY DISABLED;
THEREFORE THE PANEL'S REASON FOR DENIAL
THAT HE WOULD SPEND HIS DAYS ON SSI IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT DUE TO
MEDICAL DISABLITY, THAT IS THE
APPELLANT'S ONLY CURRENT OPTION.
In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we consider: (1) whether the
Board's action is consistent with the applicable law; (2) whether there is
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole to support its findings;
and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the Board erroneously reached
a conclusion that could not have been reasonably made based on the re levant
facts. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998). The Board's
decision to grant or deny parole turns on whether "there is a substantial
likelihood . . . the inmate will commit" another crime if released. Williams v.
N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div. 2000). The Board must
consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)(1)-(23) in making
A-3128-18T2
4
its decision. The Board, however, is not required to consider each and every
factor; rather, it should consider those applicable to each case. McGowan v.
N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 561 (App. Div. 2002). The Board
can consider an inmate's lack of insight into what led him to commit an offense.
Id. at 558-59. An inmate who is denied parole and is serving a "sentence of least
four but less than eight years . . . shall serve 20 additional months." N.J.A.C.
10A:71-3.21(a)(3).
We have considered Collins' contentions and conclude they are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and
we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Board in its cogent
decision. We add the following remarks.
The Board's action is consistent with the applicable law, there is
substantial credible evidence in the record to support its findings, and its
conclusions address the relevant facts and arguments raised by Collins. The
Board's findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrate a sound basis for
denying Collins' parole. We are likewise satisfied the presumptive twenty-
month FET imposed by the Board is supported by the record and is neither
arbitrary nor capricious. In sum, on this record, we have no reason to second-
A-3128-18T2
5
guess the Board's findings or conclusions and thus defer to its expertise in these
matters.
Affirmed.
A-3128-18T2
6