January 7, 2009
ALFREDO CRESPO, APPELLANT,
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, RESPONDENT.
On appeal from a final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 16, 2008
Before Judges Winkelstein and Chambers.
Appellant, Alfredo Crespo, is an inmate at Mid-State Correctional Facility in Wrightstown. He is serving consecutive sentences of three and four years for convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. On August 9, 2007, a two-member panel denied his parole application, and established a twenty-month future eligibility term. On January 31, 2008, the full Parole Board affirmed the two-member panel's decision.
On appeal, appellant claims that the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary, in that he had no prior criminal record; and upon release from prison he will be deported to Peru. He claims that because he will be deported, there can be no reasonable expectation that he will violate the conditions of his parole.
In addressing these arguments, we apply the well-settled principle that parole board determinations are not to be reversed unless they are arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19, 25 (1998). We examine the record and determine whether the agency's findings could reasonably have been reached from the credible evidence in the record. Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). Unless the parole board "'went so far wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made[,]'" its decision must not be disturbed. N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div.) (quoting 613 Corp. v. State of N.J., Div. of State Lottery, 210 N.J. Super. 485, 495 (App. Div. 1986)), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 649 (1988).
Applying these criteria, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Parole Board. Appellant's arguments challenging that decision, including his arguments before this court that were not raised before the Parole Board, are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.