On appeal from the New Jersey Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 3, 2008
Before Judges Rodríguez and Waugh.
Appellant Richard Crandall appeals the decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) revoking his parole, as well as the imposition of a twenty-seven month future parole eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
In 1988, Crandall was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and fourth-degree endangering the welfare of a child. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of seventeen years incarceration. He was paroled in November 1992. His parole supervision was transferred to Illinois.
In December 1993, Crandall was arrested in Illinois and charged with armed robbery. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a term of twenty-five years, to be served concurrently with two separate convictions in neighboring states.
On December 29, 1993, the Board issued a parole violation warrant, based upon the arrest in Illinois. Crandall was returned to the custody of the New Jersey Commissioner of Corrections on January 20, 2006. Crandall was accorded a parole revocation hearing before a hearing officer on May 15, 2006. Based upon his multiple convictions following parole in 1992, the hearing officer determined by clear and convincing evidence that Crandall had violated the terms of his parole, i.e., that he obey all laws. Based upon Crandall's testimony about his rehabilitation while incarcerated in Illinois, the hearing officer recommended that Crandall be continued on parole to a half-way house program for 180 days.
A two-member panel of the Board reviewed the record and the hearing officer's decision. On June 22, 2006, they concurred with the determination that Crandall had violated his parole. They did not, however, accept the hearing officer's recommendation, but instead revoked parole and set a twenty-seven month FET. Crandall filed an administrative appeal to the full Board on January 17, 2007. The Board affirmed the panel's decision on May 23, 2007.
The Board's decisions are "highly individualized discretionary appraisals, and should only be reversed if found to be arbitrary or capricious." Hare v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175, 179-80 (App. Div.) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 452 (2004). We have considered each of appellant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. The Board's decision is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in the Board's letter decision of May 24, 2007. We are satisfied that the arguments raised on appeal are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...