WESLEY JONES VS. NEW JERSEY 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2253-17T4
WESLEY JONES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
_________________________
Submitted March 6, 2019 – Decided June 25, 2019
Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Wesley Jones, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Suzanne Marie Davies,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Wesley Jones was sentenced on July 25, 1988 to life
imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of his father's murder, N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3(a)(1), (2), and the unlawful possession of a prohibited weapon, N.J.S.A.
2C: 39-3(b) – the shotgun used as the murder weapon – for which he received a
four-year consecutive sentence. Appellant appeals from the New Jersey State
Parole Board's final decision denying his parole request and setting a twenty-
four-month future parole eligibility term (FET), contending the "Board
essentially allowed [a two-member Board panel] to affirm its own decisions,
denying parole and imposing the FET. The Board [p]anel decisions were
arbitrary and not reviewed by the Board." He also offers the incongruous
argument that the Board, apparently in reviewing the panel's decision,
"undervalued [his] disciplinary history and . . . overemphasized the facts of the
crime." Additionally he avers the procedure employed in denying parole denied
him due process of law. We disagree and affirm.
A two-member Board panel, following a referral from a hearing officer,
denied parole and established the FET. Appellant filed an administrative appeal
and the Board affirmed after addressing appellant's arguments in a
comprehensive written final decision.
A-2253-17T4
2
The standard of review applicable to other administrative agency
decisions applies to our review of the Parole Board's determinations. Trantino
v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J. 19, 24-25 (1998). "We may
overturn the . . . Board's decisions only if they are arbitrary and capricious."
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino V), 166 N.J. 113, 201 (2001).
Because the parole eligibility statute creates a presumption that an inmate should
be released on the inmate's eligibility date, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53, decisions
against release must be considered arbitrary if they are not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in the record. Kosmin v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
363 N.J. Super. 28, 41-42 (App. Div. 2003).
The Board concluded that appellant's responses to the Board panel's
questions supported the panel's appropriate assessment that appellant
"exhibit[ed] insufficient problem resolution, specifically, that [he lacked]
insight into [his] criminal behavior and that [he minimized his] conduct." The
Board also considered information regarding appellant's program participation
and rehabilitative efforts. Although that evidence substantiated appellant's
involvement in treatment, the Board recognized that it was but "one factor of
many considered by the Board panel and is not the only indicator of
rehabilitation." In fact, the Board found appellant's program participation did
A-2253-17T4
3
not negate that he lacked insight into his criminal behavior and minimized his
conduct. Addressing appellant, the Board continued:
[A]lthough it appears that you have made some
progress, your criminal behavior is deeply rooted as
evidenced by your prior criminal record and numerous
institutional infractions. This contradicts your
assertion of sufficient rehabilitation. The Board notes
that while acknowledging the serious consequences of
your criminal activity is a step towards rehabilitation, it
represents only an initial effort at rehabilitation. The
Board further finds that your admission of guilt may
help you to develop insight into the causes of your
criminal behavior, but does not equate to a change in
your behavior. Therefore, in assessing your case, the
Board concurs with the determination of the Board
panel that, based on the aggregate of all relevant
factors, there is a substantial likelihood that you will
commit another crime if released on parole at this time.
It is obvious from these passages, as well as a review of the complete Board
decision, that appellant's contention that the Board did not review the panel's
decision is meritless.
Besides appellant's argument that the Board "undervalued [his]
disciplinary history and . . . overemphasized the facts of the crime," appellant
also asserts there is an "unreasonableness" in the Board's decision to deny parole
based on "the amount of weight given to the inconsistency" between the State's
assertion that appellant killed his father as a result of an affair he was having
A-2253-17T4
4
with his stepmother – his father's wife – and his contention that the shooting was
accidental.
"The decision of a parole board involves 'discretionary assessment[s] of a
multiplicity of imponderables . . . .'" Trantino V, 166 N.J. at 201 (first alteration
in original) (quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex,
442 U.S. 1, 10 (1979)). "To a greater degree than is the case with other
administrative agencies, the Parole Board's decision-making function involves
individualized discretionary appraisals." Ibid. We will not second-guess the
Board's application of its considerable expertise in sustaining the panel's
determinations. See, e.g., In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205-06 (App. Div.
1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994).
We accord that deference here in light of the record evidence. The Board
considered appellant's entire record, including updates to appellant's
institutional record that reflected his "additional program participation and that
[he] remained infraction free" since his last Board panel hearing. But the Board
concluded, "although it appears that you have made some progress, your
criminal behavior is deeply rooted as evidenced by your prior criminal record
and numerous institutional infractions." Appellant had been convicted of
larceny and sentenced to probation in Mississippi; probation was revoked and
A-2253-17T4
5
defendant was on bench warrant status when he committed the murder. He had
also committed six asterisk offenses and nine non-asterisk offenses during his
imprisonment.1 And, as we already observed, the Board found that appellant
lacked insight into his behavior and minimized his conduct. His contention that
the killing of his father was accidental supports the Board's finding. We discern
no reason to set aside these discretionary evaluations.
We are satisfied the Board, as mandated by N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(a),
based its decision "on the aggregate of all pertinent factors." The record belies
all of appellant's contrary contentions. Although mitigating factors applied and
were considered, it was within the Board's discretionary power to determine that
the considerations in favor of finding that there is a substantial likelihood
appellant would commit another crime if released on parole outweigh those
mitigating considerations. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the
Board with respect to denial of parole or the setting of an FET. See N.J. State
Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988). The Board
applied the correct legal standard and considered the relevant factors under
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b) in deciding to deny parole and set a twenty-four-month
1
Prohibited acts that are subject to disciplinary action in State prison are
classified into categories. Those preceded by an asterisk "are considered the
most serious and result in the most severe sanctions." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).
A-2253-17T4
6
FET. On the record presented, its decision was not arbitrary or capricious, see
McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002),
and we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
appellant's application for release on parole.
We also determine appellant's arguments related to the procedure
employed in determining his parole eligibility lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only that a hearing
officer performing an initial case review of an inmate's parole application is
compelled to refer the case to a Board panel if the inmate is serving a sentence
for murder. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(c); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.15(b). Upon such
referral, the Board chairperson must schedule a hearing before the appropriate
Board panel. N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.17(a). The Board panel that conducted the
hearing must forward a written notice of decision, setting forth its reasons for
denying parole to, among others, the inmate and the Board. N.J.S.A. 30:4-
123.55(d); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.18(e), (f). Only the full Board can certify an
inmate incarcerated for murder for parole, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(f); a Board
panel does not have authority to certify such an inmate for release, N.J.A.C.
10A:71-3.18(c).
A-2253-17T4
7
Appellant was afforded all of the statutory and regulatory safeguards
during the process here employed, a process approved by our Supreme Court in
Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 224 N.J. 213, 229-230 (2016):
It makes little administrative sense to expect the full
Board to conduct the equivalent of a full Board review
for release of a convicted murderer whenever a two-
member panel withholds parole. To convert every such
appeal to a full-blown review would waste Board
personnel and fiscal resources. Rather, it is reasonable
for the Board to focus its attention on the inmate's
reasons for criticizing the two-member panel's record
and decision and have that limited review be subject to
judicial review before the Board is required to conduct
a resource-intensive full hearing.
The dual hearings, first by the Board panel and then by the full Board, fully
protected appellant's due process rights. Jamgochian v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
196 N.J. 222, 240 (2008) ("The minimum requirements of due process . . . are
notice and the opportunity to be heard." (alteration in original) (quoting Doe v.
Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 106 (1995))); see Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S.
422, 433 (1982) (holding "the Due Process Clause grants the aggrieved party the
opportunity to present his case and have its merits fairly judged").
Affirmed.
A-2253-17T4
8