On appeal from New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 23, 2010
Before Judges Parrillo and Lihotz.
Appellant, Eddy Frias, remains incarcerated in Northern State Prison, Rahway, serving an eleven-year sentence for the manufacturing, distributing and dispensing a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). Frias appeals from a final decision of the State Parole Board (the Board), issued February 25, 2009, which affirmed a board panel's decision denying parole and establishing an eighteen-month future eligibility term (FET).
On appeal, appellant presents the following arguments:
THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD VIOLATED MY RIGHTS WHEN THEY ERRED WHEN USING INACCURATE INFORMATION AT MY SECOND DENIAL OF PAROLE ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2008.
THE PAROLE BOARD FAILED TO ABIDE BY THE 1997 PAROLE ACT. SPECIFICALLY BY NOT DEMONSTRATING A PREPONDERANCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT I WILL VIOLATE CONDITIONS OF PAROLE IF I AM RELEASED, OR THAT I FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN MY REHABILITATION TO SUPPORT A SECOND FET.
We have considered Frias's contentions in light of the record and the applicable law, and we affirm.
Following his conviction and sentence in 2004, Frias first became eligible for parole in 2006. Parole was denied and he again became eligible on September 25, 2008. The two member panel denied parole and imposed the FET relying on the following factors: defendant's prior criminal record; the nature of the offenses in defendant's criminal record became increasingly more serious; prior incarceration did not deter defendant's criminal activity; defendant's record contained one serious institutional infraction, resulting in administrative segregation and loss of commutation time; defendant demonstrated insufficient problem resolution skills and displayed a lack of insight into his criminal behavior; and defendant failed to adequately address substance abuse issues. Additionally, the panel considered the mitigating evidence of Frias's participation in institutional programs.
In reaching its determination, the panel considered two confidential psychological evaluation reports dated January 30, 2007 and July 1, 2008, which included a risk assessment evaluation score of twenty-three, evincing a moderate risk of recidivism. Moreover, the panel detailed the reasons supporting its conclusion to deny parole and impose the eighteen-month FET, concluding the evidence showed a reasonable expectation that Frias, if released, would violate the conditions of parole.
Frias appealed and his case was sent to the full Board for review. In a written decision dated February 29, 2009, the Board addressed each of Frias's challenges to the panel's ...