NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0382-15T1
TYRONE L. SISCO, SR.,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted March 13, 2017 – Decided April 18, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole
Board.
Tyrone L. Sisco, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Tyrone L. Sisco appeals from the final
administrative decision of the New Jersey Parole Board (Board),
denying parole and setting a twenty-four month future eligibility
term (FET). We affirm.
Appellant has an extensive criminal history and is currently
serving an eight-year sentence for his conviction of eluding a
police officer. After he became eligible for parole, appellant
appeared before a hearing officer who referred his case to a two-
member Board panel for a hearing. On May 4, 2015, the panel denied
parole based on appellant's: (1) extensive prior criminal record;
(2) prior probation and parole terms having failed to deter his
criminal behavior; (3) prior incarceration which failed to deter
his criminal behavior; and (4) demonstrated lack of insight into
his criminal behavior.
Among other things, the panel specifically found that
appellant "has no insight into his criminal motivation and made
no attempt to discover it. He presents an acceptance of his
criminal thinking as normal." The panel further determined there
was a reasonable expectation that appellant would violate
conditions of parole if released. Hence, it set a twenty-four
month FET.
The full Board issued a final agency decision on July 29,
2015, affirming the denial of parole and establishment of the
twenty-four month FET. The Board concurred with the two-member
panel that "a preponderance of the evidence indicates that there
is a reasonable expectation that [appellant] would violate the
conditions of parole if released on parole at this time."
2 A-0382-15T1
On appeal, appellant argues that the Board failed to
demonstrate that he would violate conditions of parole if released,
and that the Board's decision was contrary to established standards
set forth in the "parole handbook."
Our standard of review of administrative decisions by the
Board is limited and "grounded in strong public policy concerns
and practical realities." Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166
N.J. 113, 200, modified, 167 N.J. 619 (2001). "The decision of a
parole board involves 'discretionary assessment[s] of a
multiplicity of imponderables.'" Id. at 201 (alteration in
original) (quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr.
Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 2105, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668,
677 (1979)). "To a greater degree than is the case with other
administrative agencies, the Parole Board's decision-making
function involves individualized discretionary appraisals." Ibid.
(citing Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 358-59
(1973)).
Consequently, our courts "may overturn the Parole Board's
decisions only if they are arbitrary and capricious." Trantino,
supra, 166 N.J. at 201. With respect to the Board's factual
findings, we do not disturb them if they "could reasonably have
been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the whole record."
3 A-0382-15T1
Id. at 172 (quoting Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J.
19, 24 (1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In support of his argument that the Board lacked sufficient
evidence to conclude that he was likely to violate parole if
released, appellant contends the Board disregarded his scoring on
the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised test. He states that he scored
a 17, which indicates a low level of antisocial functioning and
recidivism. The Board's decision, however, does refer to the risk
evaluation score of 17, noting that it indicates a moderate risk
of recidivism. Therefore, the Board took the testing into account
in its determination. In any event, the evaluation score is one
of many parole factors and not dispositive by itself.
In presenting his second argument, appellant asserts that the
Board did not consider his attendance at institutional programs
and did not weigh all of the enumerated factors listed in the
"parole handbook" in its parole consideration. We disagree.
In its decision, the Board noted several mitigating factors
including defendant's infraction-free record during his current
incarceration and his participation in institutional programs.
Appellant does not specify what, if any, additional factors should
have been and were not considered by the Board. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-
3.11(b) lists factors that may be considered by the panels and
Board in their evaluation of whether to grant or deny parole.
4 A-0382-15T1
There is no mandate to weigh each factor as asserted by appellant.
Without further elucidation, we are satisfied that the Board based
its decision on the entire record governed by the statutory factors
under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b).
The Board's findings are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable,
but rather are supported by credible evidence. The Board has
authority to make the assessment as to the expectation that an
inmate will violate conditions on parole if released. The Board
determined, based on the two-member panel's interview and review
of appellant's file, that he did not demonstrate the insight
necessary to be a candidate for parole release. We find the
Board's decision to deny parole and set a twenty-four month FET
is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and
consistent with the applicable law.
Affirmed.
5 A-0382-15T1
MARJORIE JONES VS. BOARD OF REVIEW(BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
Combined Opinion