Preview:

a2290-04.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version

This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO.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-2290-04T52290-04T5 WILLIE HUTTO, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent.

Submitted June 1, 2006 - Decided June 19, 2006 Before Judges Conley and Winkelstein. On appeal from a final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board. Willie Hutto, appellant pro se. Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Walter C. Kowalski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Appellant Willie Hutto is incarcerated at Riverfront State Prison in Camden serving a fifteen-year sentence following a conviction for two counts of sexual assault. He appeals from a final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board dated November 17, 2004, which affirmed the two-member July 30, 2004 determination of the Adult Panel that denied appellant parole and established a thirty-six-month future eligibility term. On appeal, appellant raises the following point: APPELLANT WAS DENIED PAROLE IN VIOLATION OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2290-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:18:56 PM]

a2290-04.opn.html

We affirm. On May 4, 1998, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b. The court dismissed fifteen other counts, including charges of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, second and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and fourth-degree criminal sexual assault. The court imposed an eight-year term with a four-year period of parole ineligibility on one count, and a consecutive seven-year term with a one-year period of parole ineligibility on the other. In determining that appellant was ineligible for parole, the Adult Panel indicated that appellant had an "attitude problem"; he took little responsible "for anything"; and he was "totally without insight into his pathology." In its letter decision to appellant, the Parole Board noted: [T]he Adult Panel appropriately considered your prior criminal record and noted that its nature is becoming increasingly more serious and that you are presently incarcerated for a multi-crime conviction. It was also noted that your prior opportunities on parole as well as prior incarcerations have failed to deter your criminal behavior. In addition you have received an institutional infraction with your last charge occurring in October 2000. The Adult Panel also noted your insufficient problem resolution, specifically your lack of insight into your criminal behavior, minimizing your conduct and not sufficiently addressing your substance abuse problem as demonstrated by your Panel interview, pre-parole report, documentation in the case file and confidential material and professional reports. In addition the Adult Panel also noted a "Prosecutor objection" and that you were "removed from pre-GED class due to an attitude problem." Finally the Adult Panel noted you "take[] very little responsibility for anything," are "totally without insight into [your] pathology," have made "very little progress in addressing [your] behavior issues," you "remain[s] a significant risk for reoffense" and "deny[ies] a sex problem." Parole Board determinations are not to be reversed unless they are arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19, 25 (1998) (Trantino II). The standard for parole at the time appellant committed his offenses was whether there was a "reasonable expectation that the inmate will commit a new crime under the laws of this State if released." 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). Unless the Parole Board went "so far 'wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made[,]'" its decision must not be disturbed. N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div.) (quoting 613 Corp. v. State of N.J., Div. of State Lottery, 210 N.J. Super. 485, 495 (App. Div. 1986)), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 649 (1988). Applying these criteria here, we find no basis to disturb the Parole Board's decision. The Parole Board pointed out that appellant had not identified any material facts or credible evidence that the Adult Panel failed to consider. Prior parole opportunities have not deterred appellant's criminal behavior, and he continues to lack insight into his behavior and minimizes his conduct. The Parole Board determined that appellant remains a significant risk to reoffend and there is a substantial likelihood that he will commit a crime if released on parole. The Parole Board's

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2290-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:18:56 PM]

a2290-04.opn.html

determination, which adopted the Adult Panel's findings, was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Appellant's arguments to the contrary are without sufficient merit to warrant additional discussion. See R. 2:113(e)(1)(D)&(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the Parole Board.

Affirmed. (continued) (continued) 4 A-2290-04T5 June 19, 2006 0x01 graphic

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/a2290-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:18:56 PM]



Download a2290-04.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law