On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 14, 2013
Before Judges Parrillo and Fasciale.
Stephen Perry appeals from a May 25, 2011 final agency decision by the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying his second request for parole and imposing a thirty-six-month period of future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
Perry is an inmate at Northern State Prison and is serving a life sentence for murder. In January 1979, while committing an armed burglary, Perry fired three shots at two police officers, hitting one in the wrist and chest. When hospitalized for his own injuries sustained in the attack, Perry lured a Sheriff's Officer into the bathroom, assaulted him with an IV pole, grabbed his gun from his holster, and shot the officer in the heart, killing him, in an attempt to escape from custody. Perry had an extensive criminal history before these January 1979 offenses.
Since his last Board hearing in June 2001, Perry committed nine infractions, bringing his total number of institutional violations to fifty-one. This includes a drug-related crime committed in June 2001 of distributing heroin to a fellow prisoner, for which Perry pled guilty in September 2003 and was sentenced to a four-year term with a mandatory minimum of one-year, to run consecutive to the sentence he was presently serving.
In 2010, Perry became eligible for parole for the second time. A Hearing Officer (HO) conducted an initial hearing and then referred the matter to a two-member panel, which considered his case, denied parole, and established a thirty-six-month FET. In November 2010, Perry appealed to the full Board. In its final four-page written decision on May 25, 2011, the Board determined that "there is a reasonable expectation that [Perry] will violate conditions of parole if released," affirmed the two-member panel, and imposed a thirty-six-month FET. The Board upheld the panel's decision. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Perry raises the following points:
APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED LEAVE TO PROCEED OUT OF TIME AND AS AN INDIGENT ON APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PAROLE RELEASE SINCE THE DECISION BLATANTLY VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY RULED UPON IN CONTROLLING DECISIONS.
POINT II THE COMMUTATION CREDITS NOT AWARDED APPELLANT BY THE AGENCY VIOLATE A LIBERTY INTEREST, AND SHOULD THE COURT NOT REVERSE THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF THE DENIAL OF RELEASE ON SUMMARY DISPOSITION, THE PROPER CREDITS MUST BE AWARDED.
POINT III APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL RELATIVE TO HIS STATUS AS A PRISONER BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTER.
POINT IV ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY DISPOSITION TO APPELLANT SINCE THE AGENCY HAS A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF CONTINUALLY AND EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATING CONTROLLING DECISION RESULTANT IN PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND ...