Preview:

a2178-08.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A- 2178-08T22178-08T2
MIGUEL TORRES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
Submitted November 5, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Fisher and Sapp-Peterson.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Miguel Torres, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this pro se appeal, Miguel Torres appeals from a New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) decision that denied him
parole and imposed a twenty-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
Torres is currently serving concurrent five-year sentences for two violations of probation (VOP) in connection with
convictions under two Passaic County indictments. Under Indictment No. 04-04-0461, he was convicted of third-
degree Conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:21-2.1(a) (Count One), and third-degree False Documents, 154 N.J. 19, 25
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2178-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:08:40 PM]




a2178-08.opn.html
(1998) (Trantino IV). Such decisions "should not be reversed by a court unless found to be arbitrary . . . or an abuse
of discretion." Ibid. The Board's decisions regarding parole are highly individualized, and the Board has significant
discretionary power in making its release decision. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001)
(Trantino VI). In deciding whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, the parole denial must be
examined against a three-part standard. Trantino IV, supra, 154 N.J. at 24. First, we must determine whether the
agency's action violated express or implied legislative policy. Ibid. Secondly, we must assess whether the record
contains substantial evidence to support the agency's decision. Ibid. Finally, we must evaluate whether in applying
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not have been
reasonably made. Ibid. In this case, the Board's decision was in accord with applicable law and legislative policies
and was supported by substantial evidence.
Torres' disregard for the law has been demonstrated by his prior criminal record, and prior probation and
incarceration have not deterred him from engaging in further criminal activity. He is presently serving a sentence for
more than one crime. His claim that the Board should essentially be precluded from considering his prior criminal
record and violations of probation is without merit. These are factors that are relevant in any consideration of the
likelihood that he will respond favorably to parole. See N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.11(B). Likewise, neither his immigration
status nor the fact that he has two young children is justification for granting parole when weighed against the
other factors the Board considered. The record clearly contained substantial evidence to support the Board's
decision to deny parole and impose a twenty-month FET.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
5
A-2178-08T2
December 14, 2009
0x01 graphic
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2178-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:08:40 PM]




a2178-08.opn.html
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2178-08.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:08:40 PM]

Download a2178-08.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law