SOLWAZI NYAHUMA VS. NJ STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1631-17T3
SOLWAZI NYAHUMA,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted April 8, 2019 – Decided July 16, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Solwazi Nyahuma, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Solwazi Nyahuma, who is currently incarcerated in East Jersey
State Prison, appeals the New Jersey State Parole Board's (the Board) September
20, 2017 final agency decision denying him parole and imposing a 120-month
Future Eligibility Term (FET). We affirm.
In March 1981, Nyahuma was convicted for the December 1986 murder
of his sixty-year-old aunt and related weapons offenses. He was sentenced to a
prison term of life with a mandatory-minimum prison term of thirty years.
In December 2016, Nyahuma became eligible for parole for the first time
after serving approximately twenty-eight years. A parole hearing officer
referred the matter to a two-member Board panel, which denied parole. In
reaching its decision, the panel cited numerous reasons, including but not limited
to: the nature and circumstances of the murder offense; Nyahuma's prior
criminal offense of an eight-year prison term for aggravated manslaughter
resulting in a 1982 parole that expired in June 1986; commission of prison
disciplinary infractions, the most recent one being in 1993; lack of insight into
criminal behavior and failure to sufficiently address a substance abuse problem;
and the results of a confidential objective risk mental health assessment
evaluation. The panel acknowledged several mitigating factors, including but
not limited to: opportunities on community supervision completed without any
A-1631-17T3
2
violations; favorable institutional adjustment based upon participation in
institutional programs; and achievement of minimal custody status. In addition,
the panel requested that a three-member Board panel establish an FET outside
the twenty-seven months administrative guidelines under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-
3.21(a)(1).
In February 2017, the three-member panel confirmed the denial of parole
and established a 120-month FET, making March 2024 Nyahuma's parole
eligibility date. The panel noted, however, that with earned work credits and
minimum custody credits, his parole eligibility date would be reduced to July
2022, which is three years from now.
The panel's reasoning was set forth in a seven-page written decision that
essentially relied upon the same reasons for denial and recognized the same
mitigating factors as the two-member panel did in denying parole. In short, the
panel remarked that Nyahuma was unable to identify the causes of his violent
behavior, failed to address his drug abuse problems and has not developed an
adequate insight into recognizing the issues that could cause him to recidivate.
Nyahuma appealed to the full Board, which affirmed the panels' decision
for essentially the same reasons.
Before us, Nyahuma argues the following points:
A-1631-17T3
3
POINT I
THE PAROLE BOARD'S FAILURE TO
ARTICULATE REASONS FOR CONCLUDING
THAT THE STATUTORY STANDARD FOR
DENYING PAROLE WAS SATISFIED
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION THAT
WARRANTS REVERSAL. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT II
THE PAROLE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER THE
REMOTENESS OF APPELLANT'S PRIOR VIOLENT
CRIMES WHICH CONSTITUTED ARBITRARY[]
AND CAPRICIOUS ACTION. (NOT RAISED
BELOW).
POINT III
THE PAROLE BOARD'S FINDING THAT
APPELLANT LACKED INSIGHT INTO CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOR THAT OCCURRED [THIRTY] YEARS
AGO APPLIES TO AN AMORPHOUS[] UNFAIR
STANDARD UNRELATED TO HIS CURRENT RISK
OF RECIDIVISM. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT IV
THE PAROLE BOARD RENDERED AN
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION IN
UNFAIRLY IMPOSING A FUTURE ELIGIBILITY
TERM MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE
PRESUMPTIVE LIMIT.
POINT V
THE PAROLE BOARD RENDERED AN
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION IN
A-1631-17T3
4
DENYING PAROLE BASED ON FACTORS
IMMATERIAL IN ASSESSING CURRENT
DANGEROUSNESS. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
We have considered the contentions raised by Nyahuma and conclude that
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 thorough decision. We add the following remarks.
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 relevant
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, 7-8 (App. Div. 2000). The Board must
consider the enumerated factors in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)(1)-(23) in making
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).
A-1631-17T3
5
An inmate serving a minimum term in excess of fourteen years is
ordinarily assigned a twenty-seven month FET after a denial of parole. See
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(a)(1). However, N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.21(d) allows a three-
member panel to establish a FET outside of the administrative guidelines if the
presumptive twenty-seven-month FET is "clearly inappropriate due to the
inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future
criminal behavior."
Here, the Board's action is consistent with the applicable law, there is
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole to support its findings, and
the Board reached conclusions that were based on the relevant facts. The Board
made extensive findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrating the basis
for its decision to deny Nyahuma's parole. In its final decision, the Board
provided multiple reasons for imposing the 120-month FET, which although
lengthy, is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and may actually enable him to be
released on parole in July 2022. Hence, the 120-month FET is not nearly as
severe as it may first appear. On this record, we have no reason to second-guess
those findings or conclusions and defer to the Board's expertise in these matters.
Affirmed.
A-1631-17T3
6