On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Ashrafi.
Appellant Ronnie Bullock appeals from a final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board dated August 25, 2010, which affirmed the March 25, 2010 decision of a two-member panel of the Board denying him parole. We affirm.
The conviction for which Bullock is serving a sentence of imprisonment originally arose out of allegations that he had sexually abused a foster child in his care. In April 2009, he entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7), for "striking[,] hitting and spanking[, the child] about the buttocks thereby attempting to cause significant bodily injury to [the child] and causing such injury." Bullock did not admit any sexual crime. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on June 19, 2009.
On March 25, 2010, a panel of the Parole Board denied parole and set a sixteen-month future eligibility term. On its decision form, the panel checked as reasons for denial: prior criminal record noted and insufficient problem resolution, specifically lack of insight into criminal behavior and minimizes conduct. As to the latter reason, the panel commented further that Bullock's "account of offense does not appear credible as to the behavior for which he pled guilty - lacks insight." The panel also noted four mitigating factors in favor of Bullock's application for parole: infraction free, participation in institutional programs, average to above average institutional reports, and attempt made to enroll and participate in programs but was not admitted.
Bullock filed an administrative appeal to the full Parole Board. In its written decision of August 25, 2010, the Board discussed and rejected each of Bullock's contentions, affirming the panel decision and reasons for denial of parole.
On appeal before us, Bullock argues:
PETITIONER HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE PAROLE BOARD PROCEEDING THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO PAROLE ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMS PUT FORTH IN POINT I OF HIS APPELLATE BRIEF.
A. THE BOARD PANEL FAILED TO CONSIDER MATERIAL FACTS.