Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hare v. New Jersey State Parole Board

April 05, 2004

ORLANDO G. HARE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Before Judges Pressler, Ciancia and Parker.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ciancia, J.A.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 16, 2004

This is an appeal by defendant Orlando G. Hare from the denial of parole and the imposition of a twenty-four-month future eligibility term (FET) approved by the full Parole Board on June 25, 2003.

In 1992 defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for the 1990 manslaughter of a two-year-old child who had been left in his care. He also received concurrent sentences for three drug offenses. In April 2001 defendant was paroled. In January 2002 defendant violated parole by using drugs. His parole was revoked in March 2002 and, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.17B(a)3, he was given a twelve-month FET. In May 2002 the matter was referred to a Board panel pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.15(b). The two-member panel subsequently denied parole and set a twenty-four-month FET. Defendant appealed that decision to the full Board which, on June 25, 2003, affirmed the adult Board panel's determination in a written decision. Defendant appealed to this court.

In his initial brief filed on July 30, 2003, defendant asserted:

PAROLE BOARD'S INCREASE OF THIS APPELLANT'S FUTURE ELIGIBILITY TERM FROM TWELVE MONTHS TO TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS WAS ILLEGAL.

In a subsequent brief filed on September 26, 2003, he contended:

POINT I

SINCE I HAD ALREADY RECEIVED A 12 MONTH FET ON MARCH 4, 2002 UPON MY PAROLE BEING REVOKED FOR A TECHNICAL VIOLATION, THE PANEL'S MAY 31, 2002 DECISION TO RENDER A SUBSEQUENT 24 MONTH FET WAS CONTRARY TO WRITTEN BOARD POLICY AND PROCEDURE (Raised Below).

POINT II

THE BOARD PANEL FAILED TO DOCUMENT THAT A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS APPELLANT WILL COMMIT A ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.