On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Skillman and Gilroy.
Appellant Louis Watley appeals from the November 26, 2008 final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (the Board) that denied him parole and established a twenty-seven month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
Appellant became eligible for parole for a third time in May 2007. Because the procedural history leading to the denial of parole that formed the basis of this appeal is discussed in another unreported opinion simultaneously filed with this opinion, Watley v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, No. A-0217-08 (App. Div. 2010) (slip op. at 2-4), it is unnecessary for us to detail that history here.
On April 24, 2008, a two-member Board Panel denied parole and established a twenty-seven month FET, determining that "a substantial likelihood exists that [appellant] would commit a new crime if released on parole at this time." In so doing, the Panel based its decision on appellant's prior criminal record; appellant's incarceration for multi-crime convictions; appellant's prior opportunities on probation failed to deter his criminal behavior; and appellant's insufficient problem resolution, including a lack of insight into his criminal behavior, denial of the crimes committed, and minimization of his criminal conduct. On November 26, 2008, the Board affirmed the Panel's decision.
On appeal, appellant argues:
PANEL'S DETERMINATION WAS FLAWED WHERE ITS BASIS WAS ROOTED IN A TAINTED PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT ORDERED BY A PANEL MEMBER WHO EXHIBITED BIAS.
PAROLE PANEL AND BOARD ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER RELIEF, WHERE THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES VIOLATED STATE [STATUTE] AND [ADMINISTRATIVE] CODES BY FAILING TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS, AND FAILED TO RECEIVE AS EVIDENCE RELEVANT AND RELIABLE DOCUMENTS. N.J.A.C. 10a:71-4.1(a)(1); N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55C.
A. MITIGATING FACTOR OF "NO PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD OR MINIMAL CRIMINAL RECORD" WAS NEITHER CHECKMARKED OR TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO ARRIVE AT ADULT PANEL'S DETERMINATION.
B. THE ADULT PANEL FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT WRITTEN BY THE PROSECUTOR CONFIRMING THE STATE DID NOT ...