Shadith Williams 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2753-22
SHADITH WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted September 24, 2024 – Decided October 17, 2024
Before Judges Susswein and Bergman.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Duane Morris LLP, attorneys for appellant (Lindsay A.
Brown, of counsel and on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Shadith Williams appeals from a final decision of the New
Jersey State Parole Board (Board), revoking his parole, denying his requested
jail credits and imposing an eighteen-month term of incarceration. We affirm.
I.
In 2012, appellant pled guilty to second-degree sexual assault, contrary to
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4), for engaging in consensual intercourse with a fourteen -
year-old female when he was nineteen. Appellant was sentenced to a custodial
term of five years and mandatory Parole Supervision for Life (PSL), pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. Appellant commenced PSL on May 13, 2020. Appellant
signed and agreed to Conditions of Supervision on the same date.
In 2020, appellant was charged with manufacturing, delivering, or
possessing a controlled substance, and intentionally possessing a controlled
substance, contrary to Pa. Stat. Ann. 780-113(a)(16) and (30). On May 9, 2022,
appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to a term of two years, time served, and
three years' probation.
While these charges were pending, appellant was detained in
Pennsylvania from August 14, 2020, to the date of his guilty plea. Because of
his incarceration on the drug charges, he missed a "check in" with his New
Jersey parole officer, who issued a missing warrant on September 30, 2020,
A-2753-22
2
unaware defendant was detained in Pennsylvania. Upon learning of appellant's
arrest and detention in Pennsylvania, the missing warrant was cancelled, and his
parole officer(s) periodically monitored the case.
After appellant's sentencing on the drug charge in Pennsylvania, a parole
warrant was issued and lodged as a detainer on May 19, 2022, which was
enforced. Appellant was extradited to New Jersey on June 2, 2022. The date
listed on appellant's PSL release was November 9, 2023, rather than December
1, as a result of the jail credits owed for his incarceration in Pennsylvania from
May 10 to June 2, 2022.
A final revocation hearing was held on August 24, 2022. Appellant
participated in the hearing and was represented by counsel. Appellant pled
guilty with an explanation for his violation of PSL General Condition #A1, to
obey all laws and ordinances. Appellant testified the ongoing pandemic in May
2020 and his status as a registered sex offender made it difficult for him to find
housing and employment when he was released from prison. He testified in the
two years since his arrest in Pennsylvania he has moved in with an uncle and
has two potential job opportunities in Atlantic City upon his release.
Appellant testified he participated in institutional programs, such as AA,
NA, Anger Management, Culinary Arts and Barbering, and was willing to
A-2753-22
3
participate in drug abuse and other community-based programs upon release.
He also explained the drug charge in Pennsylvania was a result of him trying to
earn money to live at the motel because no other housing was available. In
addition, he testified he was not using drugs. Further, he stated he attended all
parole meetings from May to August 2020, was sober and alert, and had not
engaged in violent activity.
Senior Parole Officer Savarese also testified at the hearing on behalf of
the State. He stated during his parole supervision, appellant showed "a disregard
for compliance and rehabilitation . . . multiple failures to report . . . [and] failures
to reside at his approved address." He also failed to comply with the Electronic
Monitoring Program (EMP) and the Stages to Enhance Parolee Success (STEPS)
program on three separate occasions for each program. He testified appellant
received two traffic citations for driving without a license and was arrested three
times for failure to pay child support. In 2017 appellant was also charged for
possession of an imitation handgun and absconded from parole supervision,
cutting his electronic monitoring bracelet off. Also, in January 2019, appellant
was charged with possession of a controlled substance and absconded from
parole supervision for the second time. Officer Savarese recommended
appellant's parole be revoked, because appellant violated General Condition #A1
A-2753-22
4
of his parole agreement which required appellant obey all laws and ordinances,
and there was clear and convincing evidence appellant seriously and persistently
violated his parole supervision.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing officer
sustained the violation of PSL General Condition #A1. The hearing officer
acknowledged appellant faced a difficult situation when he was released, but
that did not negate the new criminal conviction. Therefore, the hearing officer
recommended appellant's PSL be revoked, and he be required to serve an
eighteen-month term of incarceration.
Thereafter, appellant submitted supplemented arguments to the hearing
officer asserting his delay in entering a plea forced him to serve more time than
was necessary, and argued he should have been given jail time credit for his
detention in Pennsylvania since the Judgment of Conviction stated his sentence
for that charge shall be served "[c]oncurrent with any PA sentence . . . and any
violation of PSL/CSL." (emphasis added)
In October 2022, a two-member Board panel reviewed all relevant facts
and the hearing officer's recommendation. The panel accepted the hearing
officer's credibility determinations and found, by clear and convincing evidence,
appellant had violated the conditions of his parole by engaging in criminal
A-2753-22
5
activity when he was convicted and sentenced for a drug-related offense in
Pennsylvania in 2020. The panel determined his violation was serious and
revoked his parole and entered an eighteen month term of incarceration.
In January 2023, appellant filed an administrative appeal to the full Parole
Board. Appellant argued the panel failed to consider material facts and failed
to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had seriously or persistently
violated the conditions of parole. He further argued the Board failed to
demonstrate that revocation of parole is desirable, and the panel's decision was
contrary to written Board policy and procedure.
In March 2023, the Board issued a final agency decision affirming the
panel decision to revoke appellant's PSL and directed him to serve an eighteen -
month term of incarceration. The Board found that the panel reviewed all
relevant facts and determined there was clear and convincing evidence appellant
violated PSL General Condition #A1. It found appellant admitted during the
revocation hearing that he failed to obey all laws, and further found he failed to
show by clear and convincing evidence good cause existed as to why his PSL
status should not have been revoked.
A-2753-22
6
Further, the Board found appellant's PSL status was not revoked for reasons
other than a new criminal conviction, so the panel did not have to consider
whether revocation of parole was desirable.
The Board also found because appellant was not being detained in
Pennsylvania solely on the New Jersey parole violation, appellant was not under
New Jersey custody and was not entitled to receive jail credit from September
30, 2020 (the date the parole warrant was issued), to May 8, 2020 (the day he
was sentenced in Pennsylvania). Therefore, the panel's decision jail time was
not contrary to Board policy or procedure and appellant's contention concerning
that point was also meritless.
Finally, the Board addressed appellant's argument the panel should not
have considered past conduct for which he already served time, nor the
testimony of a parole officer who never met or worked with appellant. The
Board found the purpose of the revocation hearing was to determine whether
good cause existed as to why appellant should not be returned to confinement
and in making that determination, the panel must consider appellant's past
opportunities and violations of his parole did not curtail his crimi nal behavior.
The Board found the evidence showed appellant was afforded multiple
opportunities through the EMP and STEPS programs to curtail his criminal
A-2753-22
7
behavior, but appellant absconded from supervision three times for each
program. The Board further found appellant showed a general disregard for his
supervision in the past and his out of state arrest and conviction in 2020 was not
his first parole violation. Therefore, the Board concluded appellant failed to
demonstrate good cause against his impending confinement.
The Board also found the Division of Parole presented competent
evidence and testimony regarding the parole violation, even though Officer
Savarese never directly supervised the appellant. The Board determined
appellant had a full and fair opportunity to testify and had the right to request a
postponement of the hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.7(c) for him to
present his assigned parole officer to testify. The Board found appellant did not
request a postponement, then testified on his own behalf, rendering his argument
meritless.
II.
On appeal, appellant reiterates his arguments made before the Board that
his PSL status was improperly revoked because the Board failed to consider
material facts establishing good cause as to why he should not be further
detained. He argues he was not the person selling the drugs in Pennsylvania, he
A-2753-22
8
pled guilty to these charges to protect others, and he has taken several positive
steps since being incarcerated.
Appellant also argues the Board should not have considered the testimony
of Officer Savarese because he was not appellant's parole officer and was not
the officer with the most familiarity. In addition, appellant argues the Board's
decision to deny him jail credits for the time he was detained in Pennsylvania
was contrary to law. Appellant asserts he was entitled to jail credits because
New Jersey issued a parole warrant on September 30, 2020, and appellant was
in Pennsylvania custody until he was sentenced on May 9, 2022, so his
incarceration was attributable to a New Jersey parole violation.
III.
We are guided by established principles. "[A]n appellate court reviews
agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v.
Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237 N.J. 465, 475 (2019). See Melnyk v.
Bd. of Educ. of the Delsea Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 241 N.J. 31, 40 (2020). "An
agency's determination on the merits 'will be sustained unless there is a clear
showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair
support in the record.'" Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys.,
219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.
A-2753-22
9
Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). The party challenging the administrative action
bears the burden of making that showing. Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171
(2014).
"Parole determinations . . . are entitled to deferential review by our
courts." Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 250 N.J. 431, 454 (2022). "A mere
difference of opinion is not a basis for a court to overturn a parole decision."
Ibid. However, our scope of review is narrow. Berta v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
473 N.J. Super. 284, 302, 280 A.3d 797 (App. Div. 2022). "As a general matter,
[we] will disturb an agency's adjudicatory decision only if [it] determine[s] that
the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable' or is unsupported 'by
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ibid. (quoting Henry
v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
PSL may be revoked if a parolee violates a condition of their parole.
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(b); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.12(d). When a parolee has been
convicted of a crime committed while on parole, "the purpose of the revocation
hearing shall be to determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, good
cause exists why the parolee should not be returned to confinement." N.J.A.C.
10A:71-7.12(d).
A-2753-22
10
IV.
After our review of the hearing records and the findings of both the
hearing officer and the full Board, we conclude their findings were not arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable and clear support existed in the hearing record the
appellant violated his parole supervision requirements by clear and convincing
evidence. We also determine the consideration of Officer Savarese's testimony
and appellant's argument concerning the jail time credits calculation holds no
merit for the reasons which follow.
The record overwhelmingly supports the Division of Parole established,
by clear and convincing evidence, appellant violated PSL General Condition
#A1, when he pled guilty to and was convicted of the "offense of Manufacture,
Deliver, or Possess with the Intent to Manufacture or Deliver Schedule 1 Drug,"
in the Bucks County, Pennsylvania Criminal Court. PSL General Condition #A1
states appellant must "obey all law and ordinances." Appellant's arguments his
parole should not have been revoked after this conviction—because he was only
moving the drugs for money, was not using the drugs himself, and was
protecting others by admitting guilt—are unpersuasive. Defendant was
convicted of committing a crime within three months of his release,
unquestionably constituting a violation of his PSL conditions.
A-2753-22
11
We reject appellant's argument the Board should not have considered the
testimony of Officer Savarese because he was not appellant's parole officer. The
record divulges Officer Savarese was the supervisor of appellant's parol officer
and was familiar with appellant's compliance history from a review of his record.
The Board properly considered his testimony because it was relevant to whether
appellant violated his conditions and whether cause existed to revoke his parole
based on a history of non-compliance. Officer Savarese's testimony rebutted
appellant's assertion he should not be returned to confinement by underscoring
his record of non-compliance with the conditions of parole. We note appellant
never requested a postponement to subpoena another officer to testify. We find
no error in the Board's consideration of this testimony.
Lastly, we address appellant's argument the Board erred by not crediting
the jail time he served in Pennsylvania against the eighteen-month jail sentence
he received for the parole violation. We review the grant or denial of jail credits
de novo. State v. Walters, 445 N.J. Super. 596, 600 (App. Div. 2016) (citing
State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24, 48-49 (2011)).
Rule 3:21-8 provides, "[t]he defendant shall receive credit on the term of
a custodial sentence for any time served in custody in jail . . . between arrest and
the imposition of sentence." When the rule applies, credits are mandatory, not
A-2753-22
12
discretionary. Hernandez, 208 N.J. at 37. Furthermore, Rule 3:21-8 expresses
the public policy of this State and should be liberally construed. See State v.
Beatty, 128 N.J. Super. 488, 491 (App. Div. 1974). Further, "once a parole
warrant [is] lodged defendant [is] no longer confined solely as a result of the
new charges . . . [t]herefore, after the detainer [is] lodged defendant's
incarceration [is] attributable to the violation of parole." State v. Harvey, 273
N.J. Super. 572, 574-75 (App. Div. 1994). But "[i]f the warrant is withdrawn or
parole is not revoked and the defendant is not returned to custody, then jail time
is credited against the new sentence." Id. at 576.
We find no merit to appellant's argument since he was clearly incarcerated
for the Pennsylvania charges while awaiting his trial there. Appellant's
incarceration in Pennsylvania was due to criminal charges filed against him in
that state and were not solely due to the parole violation charges in New Jersey.
State v. Joe, 228 N.J. 125, 135 (2017). Appellant's argument does not convince
us otherwise. We determine no error existed in the calculation of credits found
by the Board.
Affirmed.
A-2753-22
13