Jonathan Walker v. New Jersey State Parole Board ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2635-22
JONATHAN WALKER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent-Respondent.
_________________________
Argued July 9, 2024 – Decided July 16, 2024
Before Judges Gilson and Smith.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Timothy Mark Ortolani argued the cause for appellant
(Kaufman Dolowich LLP, attorneys; Timothy Mark
Ortolani, of counsel and on the briefs).
Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M.
Rodriguez, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Parolee, Jonathan Walker, appeals from a March 29, 2023 final agency
decision by the State Parole Board (the Board) revoking his parole and imposing
a thirteen-month term of incarceration before he would be eligible for parole
again. We affirm.
In 2010, Walker was charged with murder, unlawful possession of a
handgun, and possessing a handgun for an unlawful purpose. He was separately
charged for various drug-related offenses, including distributing cocaine. In
2012, Walker pled guilty to an amended charge of first-degree aggravated
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and third-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to
distribute within a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. That same year, he was
sentenced to an aggregate prison term of thirteen years with periods of parole
ineligibility and parole supervision as prescribed by the No Early Release Act
(NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
In February 2022, Walker was released from prison on parole. Upon his
release, Walker was advised that he had to comply with various parole
conditions. The conditions included that he: reside in an approved location;
obtain permission from his parole officer to change his residence; obtain
A-2635-22
2
permission from his parole officer to leave New Jersey; refrain from purchasing
or using alcohol; and participate in and complete a substance abuse program.
During his first four months of parole, Walker violated numerous
conditions. Specifically, he violated the residency requirements, used drugs and
alcohol, and traveled outside of New Jersey without permission from his parole
officer. The last charge involved a May 2022 trip that Walker took to Tennessee,
where he visited a dying relative and then attended her funeral. Walker stayed
there approximately ten days before returning to New Jersey.
Upon his return, Walker was charged with violating his parole conditions.
He was assigned counsel, and a revocation hearing took place. The hearing
officer found Walker had repeatedly and persistently violated his parole
conditions. The hearing officer's initial decision recommended Walker's parole
be revoked, and he serve thirteen months without parole eligibility.
Walker administratively appealed. In the Board's final administrative
decision (FAD), it found that Walker's parole violations had been established by
clear and convincing evidence. The Board noted that Walker, within four
months of his release, had committed several parole violations, including but
not limited to repeatedly failing to attend drug and alcohol counseling and
leaving the state without permission. Characterizing the violations as "serious
A-2635-22
3
and persistent," the Board revoked Walker's parole status and imposed the
thirteen-month term.
On appeal, Walker contends that the Board's FAD was arbitrary and
capricious.
We review a Parole Board's determination deferentially "in light of its
expertise in the specialized area of parole supervision." J.I. v. N.J. State Parole
Bd., 228 N.J. 204, 230 (2017) (citing McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347
N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)). We will not reverse the Board's decision
"unless found to be arbitrary . . . or an abuse of discretion." Pazden v. N.J. State
Parole Bd., 374 N.J. Super. 356, 366 (App. Div. 2005) (omission in original)
(quoting Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J. 19, 25 (1998)).
Unless the Board "went so far wide of the mark that a mistake must have been
made," its decision must not be disturbed. N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224
N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988).
In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we are obligated to "determine
whether [the Board's] factual finding could have been reached on sufficient
credible evidence in the whole record." Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd.
(Trantino VI), 166 N.J. 113, 172 (2001) (quoting Trantino IV, 154 N.J. at 24).
Specifically, we must consider: (1) whether the Board's action is consistent with
A-2635-22
4
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 reached based on the relevant facts. Ibid. Credibility determinations
by those who see and hear witnesses are afforded substantial deference. State,
Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. T.G., 414 N.J. Super. 423, 433 (App. Div. 2010);
Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587-88 (1988).
On appeal, Walker contends that his admitted violations were not serious
and persistent, urging us to reject the Board's findings on that question. He
essentially urges us to "retry" the matter with the same evidence the parties
presented to the Board, and then reach a different result. from his parole officer
and the director of his substance abuse program. This argument misinterprets
our standard of review, which does not call for such an approach.
The record contains ample evidence to support the Board's findings. The
evidence includes Walker's own admissions, as well as uncontroverted
testimony. We cannot conclude that the Board's final decision "went so far wide
of the mark that a mistake must have been made," hence we decline to disturb
it. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. at 547.
Affirmed.
A-2635-22
5