NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 7, 2013
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Willie Williams, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Before Judges Messano and Ostrer.
Appellant, Willie Williams, appeals from a July 20, 2011, Parole Board (Board) decision denying his application for parole and a November 23, 2011, Board decision establishing a future eligibility term (FET) of thirty-six months. He argues that the Board violated the Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 1 ("No State shall . . . pass any . . . Ex Post Facto Law"); U.S. Const. amend. V ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb"). Having considered his argument in light of the facts and applicable law, we affirm.
Appellant murdered a fellow New Jersey State Prison inmate in 1981, while he was serving sentences for convictions arising out of two bank robberies in 1975. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen to nineteen years on convictions of two counts of armed robbery and possession of a weapon related to one bank robbery, and a consecutive term of ten to fifteen years for armed robbery in connection with the other bank robbery. On the murder, he was sentenced to a consecutive term of life imprisonment, with a twenty-five-year parole disqualifier. He had previously been on probation for a municipal court conviction for a drug-related offense in 1973.
Appellant has had an infraction-free prison record since 1994. This most recent consideration of appellant's parole eligibility marked the second time he had become eligible for parole. He was denied parole in 2008, and given a sixty-month FET.
On July 20, 2011, the full Board denied parole, determining "a substantial likelihood exists that [appellant] would commit a new crime if released . . . at this time." The Board gave the following reasons for denying appellant's application for parole:
Prior criminal record noted.
Nature of criminal record increasingly more serious.
Presently incarcerated for multi-crime conviction.
. . . .
Prior opportunity(ies) on community supervision (probation/parole) has (have) failed to deter criminal behavior.
. . . .
Insufficient problem(s) resolution[, ] [s]pecifically . . . [l]ack of insight into criminal behavior [and] . . . [m]inimizes conduct[.] . . . Subject presents as detached emotionally and cavalierly compartmalizes [sic] his past criminality simply by stating, "I am not that person any more."
. . . .
Commission of a crime while incarcerated /on bail / on escape / attempting to ...