NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1274-15T1
LORENZO CARTER,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted September 12, 2017 – Decided September 27, 2017
Before Judges Gilson and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole
Board.
Lorenzo Carter, 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 Lorenzo Carter, presently an inmate at East Jersey
State Prison, appeals from the final agency decision of the New
Jersey State Parole Board (Board). Carter alleges that the Board
failed to consider all evidence when it denied him parole and
imposed a 120-month future eligibility term (FET). We disagree
and affirm.
In March 1980, Carter allegedly shot two people; one victim
died. Carter fled and remained a fugitive for approximately thirty
years. In February 2010, the United States Marshals arrested
Carter. In May 2012, Carter pled guilty to one count of second-
degree aggravated manslaughter and one count of second-degree
aggravated assault in connection with the March 1980 shootings.
Carter was sentenced to twelve years on the aggravated manslaughter
charge and a consecutive eight years on the aggravated assault
charge.
In February 2015, Carter became eligible for parole for the
first time. On December 8, 2014, a two-member Board panel denied
Carter's request for parole and referred his case to a three-
member Board panel to establish a FET. The three-member Board
panel established a 120-month FET. Both Board panels issued
written decisions in support of their rulings.
Carter appealed to the full Board for review of his parole
application. On October 22, 2015, the full Board affirmed the
panels' decisions denying parole and establishing a 120-month FET.
2 A-1274-15T1
On appeal, Carter, representing himself, argues the
following:
THE DECISION OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD TO IMPOSE A FUTURE
ELIGIBILITY DATE OF 120 MONTHS IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT,
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, IT
WAS A DECISION THAT IS INHERENTLY
BIASED, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS,
THEREFORE THE FET SHOULD BE VACATED
AND A NEW PAROLE HEARING SHOULD BE
ORDERED.
Under our standard of review, we accord considerable
deference to the Board and its expertise in parole matters. The
scope of our review is very limited. "[T]he Parole Board is the
'agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether an
inmate satisfies the criteria for parole release under the Parole
Act of 1979.'" Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222,
(citation omitted), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 85, 196
L. Ed. 2d 37 (2016). "The decision of a parole board involves
'discretionary assessment[s] of a multiplicity of imponderables
. . . .'" Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 201
(2001) ("Trantino V") (first alteration in original) (quoting
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1,
10, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 2105, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668, 677 (1979)). The
Board's decision regarding parole will not be disturbed unless
"arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by
3 A-1274-15T1
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (alteration in original)
(citation omitted); see also Acoli, supra, 224 N.J. at 222-23.
In reviewing his application for parole, the Board considered
Carter's repetitive prior criminal record; increasingly serious
nature of the crimes committed; that previous incarcerations did
not deter his criminal behavior; and the lack of an adequate parole
plan for reintegration into the community. Additionally, the
Board considered Carter's responses to questions posed during his
parole hearing, and concluded that his responses exhibited
insufficient problem resolution and demonstrated a lack of insight
into his criminal behavior. Further, the Board took into account
Carter's risk assessment evaluation deeming him a medium risk for
recidivism.
The Board considered, but rejected, Carter's allegation that
it failed to consider material facts contrary to Board policy and
procedure. Carter failed to identify any written policy or
procedure not followed by the Board in connection with its
decision. The Board considered the following information
regarding Carter's request for parole: his record of program
participation, including pursuing his GED; his attempts to enroll
in additional programs addressing anger management and addiction;
and his infraction-free status while incarcerated. Thus, the
4 A-1274-15T1
Board considered evidence of the positive factors as well as the
negative factors in reviewing Carter's request for parole.
The Board also found that the 120-month FET was necessary to
address Carter's inability to identify the causes of his criminal
behavior, his continued criminal activities while eluding
apprehension and prosecution for thirty years, and his lack of
"true introspection regarding the anti-social and criminal conduct
that has occurred as a steady and unbroken pattern throughout
[his] life."
Applying our well-established standard of review and
considering the record, we affirm the Board's decision. The Board
considered the relevant factors in accordance with N.J.A.C.
10A:71-3.11. The Board's determination is supported by sufficient
credible evidence and is entitled to deference.
Affirmed.
5 A-1274-15T1