NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3861-15T3
DIVINE ALLAH,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted August 8, 2017 – Decided August 24, 2017
Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole
Board.
Divine Allah, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Divine Allah appeals the final administrative
action of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board), revoking his
parole and setting a fourteen-month future eligibility term (FET).
We affirm.
In 2005 appellant was sentenced to a twelve-year custodial
term of imprisonment and to a five-year period of mandatory parole
supervision following his release from custody. When appellant
began his term of parole on March 3, 2014, he agreed that he would
refrain from the purchase, use, possession, distribution or
administration of any narcotic drug and that he would successfully
complete a drug treatment program.
Within days after his release to parole supervision,
appellant began to use marijuana. He was placed into an in-patient
drug treatment program; however after he tested positive for
marijuana twice and committed several infractions, he was
discharged.
Appellant received a subsequent notice of probable cause
hearing at which a determination would be made whether he had
committed a violation of parole. The notice advised appellant of
his panoply of rights and the parole conditions he was charged
with violating.
At the hearing in October 2015, appellant acknowledged
receiving a copy of the notice and was again advised of his right
to representation by counsel. Appellant declined counsel and
waived the probable cause hearing, electing instead for an
2 A-3861-15T3
immediate parole violation hearing. During the hearing, appellant
admitted to frequent use of marijuana since his release on parole
but sought leniency. The parole officer recommended a revocation
of parole.
The hearing officer noted that appellant "had shown little
willingness to curb his conduct based on the alternatives to
incarceration he was already afforded [and] there was nothing in
the record to support that he would suddenly change course if
continued on parole." The officer recommended a revocation of
parole and establishment of a fourteen month FET.
In its review, a two-member Board panel agreed with the
hearing officer's recommendation, noting that "[a]lternatives to
incarceration have failed to deter [appellant's] noncompliant
conduct." The panel found a violation of supervision had occurred
requiring the revocation of parole and set an FET of fourteen
months. The full Board issued a final agency decision on December
8, 2015, affirming the revocation of parole and establishment of
a fourteen-month FET.
Appellant raises the following points on appeal:
POINT ONE: THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE
BOARD'S REVOCATION OF PAROLE WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, WHERE THE REASONS STATED FOR
DENIAL WERE INADEQUATE AND THE DENIAL WAS NOT
SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN
THE RECORD.
3 A-3861-15T3
POINT TWO: THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE
BOARD'S REVOCATION OF PAROLE WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, WHERE APPELLANT ARTICULATED TO HIS
PAROLE OFFICER, HIS DEPRESSION, ASSOCIATED
WITH THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER PRIOR TO HIS
RELEASE ON PAROLE AND PROVIDED A NEXUS BETWEEN
THAT AND HIS MARIJUANA USE, YET PAROLE NEVER
OFFERED OR ORDERED HIM TO ENROLL INTO CRISIS
AND/OR BEREAVEMENT COUNSELING OR A DRUG
PROGRAM SPECIFIC TO HIS INSTANT NEEDS AT THAT
TIME. (Not Raised Below)
POINT THREE: THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE
BOARD'S REVOCATION OF PAROLE WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, WHERE APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED UPON WHEN APPELLANT
WAS DENIED A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION TO CLEAR
HIMSELF OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM.
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)).
4 A-3861-15T3
Consequently, our courts "may overturn the Parole Board's
decisions only if they are arbitrary and capricious." Ibid. 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." Id. at 172 (quoting Trantino v.
N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998)).
After considering the arguments advanced on appeal, and the
record in light of all legal principles, we conclude that they are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following brief
remarks.
Appellant agreed to the specific conditions of his release
on parole: that he could not use, purchase or possess controlled
dangerous substances and that he had to successfully complete a
drug treatment program. It was undisputed by appellant at the
revocation hearing that he had violated both of these conditions.
We are satisfied that appellant was accorded his due process
rights. He was notified of the probable cause hearing, his
entitlement to counsel, his opportunity to present witnesses and
evidence, and he was issued a written opinion explaining the
reasons for the revocation of his parole.
The Board's findings and its establishment of a fourteen-
month FET are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable as appellant
5 A-3861-15T3
argues, but rather are supported by the credible evidence found
in the record.
Affirmed.
6 A-3861-15T3