On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 13, 2011 -
Before Judges Harris and Koblitz.
Appellant Everett L. Monroe is serving concurrent fifty-year sentences in North Carolina for two 1989 murders that he committed while subject to parole supervision in this State. He appeals from the final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (the Board) refusing to vacate the general fugitive parole warrant that it issued after Monroe failed to report, and the more specific warrant addressed to North Carolina officials pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15; N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-761 to -767, after Monroe's whereabouts were ascertained following his arrest there. We affirm.
The limited administrative record reveals the following facts. In 1986, Monroe came under the supervision of the Board after completing a term of incarceration as part of a sentence for a 1979 armed robbery. In January 1989, Monroe went missing. Following an investigation, which revealed Monroe's failure to comply with several conditions of his parole, a fugitive parole warrant was issued on March 21, 1989, and a probable cause hearing was conducted on April 7, 1989. In Monroe's absence, the hearing officer found probable cause that Monroe had violated parole conditions as charged and authorized his arrest and confinement.
In May 1989, the Board learned that Monroe had been arrested and was incarcerated in North Carolina. It immediately lodged an IAD detainer, which subsists to the present. Monroe was convicted of the murders in North Carolina, where he remains imprisoned.
According to Monroe, "the [New Jersey] detainer/warrant is the sole instrument hindering [him] from all promotions in [North Carolina] due to [its] departmental policy." He further claims that as "a [North Carolina] inmate who has a detainer filed against him . . . [he] is . . . ineligible for beneficial programs available to inmates at the same level." Because approximately five months of parole supervision are left for the Board to oversee, Monroe contends that "good cause, amount of time served, a release date of 2026, coupled with other mitigating factors" combine to require the revocation of the Board's warrant.
After a campaign of letter writing by Monroe, the Board's two-person Adult Panel considered the issues raised in the correspondence in 2004. In a letter penned by the Chief of the Board's Revocation Unit, the Board wrote:
On October 13, 2004, the New Jersey State Parole Adult Panel formally revisited your situation and made the determination to return you to New Jersey for a Final Parole Revocation Hearing once you have completed the custodial portion of the sentence you are now serving.
The parole warrant currently lodged against you will remain in place.
A year later, a three-member panel of the Board affirmed this decision in a letter written by a successor Chief of the Board's Revocation Unit:
The New Jersey State Parole Board Three Member Adult Panel reviewed your situation, and on December 7, 2005, they affirmed the October 13, 2004 decision to return you to New Jersey to await a Final Parole Revocation Hearing once you have been released ...