NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2738-22
DANIEL WATKINS, a/k/a DANIEL G. WATKINS, DANIEL GLENN WATKINS JR., DANIEL G. WATKINS JR., and CHRISTOPER R. WATKINS JR., Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent. ____________________
Submitted November 4, 2024 – Decided December 23, 2024
Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
The Bank of Princeton, attorneys for appellant (Daniel J. O'Donnell, on the brief).
Matthew Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Daniel Watkins appeals the decision of the New Jersey State
Parole Board ("Board") revoking his parole supervision for life ("PSL") status
for "seriously" and "persistently" violating special conditions of his parole
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b). We conclude his special conditions are
constitutional, and the Board's decision to revoke PSL was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, and affirm.
On November 18, 2019, Watkins plead guilty to one count of third-degree
possession of child pornography contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b (5) and was
sentenced to a three-year custodial term and PSL. As part of his PSL, two
special conditions were imposed upon him: (1) he was ordered "to refrain from
the possession and/or utilization of any computer and/or device that permits
access to the Internet unless specifically authorized by the District Parole
Supervisor or designated representative" ("Special Condition One"); and (2) he
was ordered "to refrain from purchasing, viewing, downloading, possessing,
and/or creating picture, photograph, negative, film, movie, videotape, Blu -ray,
DVD, CD, CD-ROM, streaming video, video game, computer-generated or
virtual image or other representation, publication, sound recording, or live
performance that is predominately oriented to descriptions or depictions of
A-2738-22 2 sexual activity" ("Special Condition Two"). Despite these restrictions, Watkins
was given prior permission to possess an Alcatel Trac Phone with limited
internet capabilities and an Xbox video game system with internet access.
Watkins began his PSL term on May 10, 2022, after being released from
custody. On July 26, 2022, the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, the
Monroe Township Police Department, and his parole officers executed a search
warrant at Watkins's residence. Officers found a cell phone with internet
capabilities Watkins admitted he owned, hid from his parole officer, and used
to view pornography "about [twelve] times" in violation of his PSL. These
admissions were verbally relayed to officers and later memorialized in a
statement, after a Miranda waiver was executed, at the Monroe Township Police
Department.
Watkins was served with a hearing notice where his alleged parole
violations would be assessed, but he waived this hearing, while represented by
counsel, and elected instead to proceed directly to a final parole revocation
hearing. At the September 21, 2022 hearing, Watkins entered a guilty plea with
explanation. Regarding violation of Special Condition One, Watkins testified
he needed an internet-capable phone to coordinate medical services and
transportation for work and, although he attempted to obtain permission from
A-2738-22 3 his parole officer, he was denied. Regarding his violation of Special Condition
Two, Watkins explained "he viewed pornography because he is a 'grown man' .
. . . and explained that he 'felt alone.'" Watkins further testified "he d[id] not
recall how many times he viewed adult pornography, and that he 'threw the
number [12] out there' when the parole officer asked him," due to the duress he
experienced during the initial search.
The hearing officer recommended the Board revoke Watkins's PSL status
and sentence him to a twelve-month term of incarceration for "serious"
violations of his PSL special conditions, specifically expressing concern
Watkins had admitted to violating his parole less than three months after being
released from custody and "[Watkins's] actions were deceptive" and
"demonstrate[d] . . . he is not amenable to continued supervision." A two-
member Board panel concurred with this conclusion and revoked Watkins's PSL,
finding he admitted he owned the phone and hid it, and also admitted he used
the phone to view adult pornography on multiple occasions.
In the interim, we were presented with a separate appeal from Watkins,
challenging his initial sentence of PSL. We heard that appeal at an Oral
Sentencing Calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11 and remanded to the trial court on
October 19, 2022, to make more specific findings supporting the initial
A-2738-22 4 imposition of PSL. In light of our decision, the two-member panel vacated the
decision revoking his PSL on November 14, 2022.
Per our instruction, the trial court amended Watkins's judgment of
conviction with more detailed findings supporting the imposition of PSL on
December 16, 2022. In light of this more detailed judgment, which was not
appealed, the two-member Board panel reinstated its decision to revoke
Watkins's PSL status on December 22, 2022, which was affirmed by the full
Board on March 29, 2023. This appeal of the revocation of PSL followed , in
which Watkins makes two main arguments: first, he claims Special Condition
One is unconstitutionally overbroad; and second, he asserts the revocation was
improper because he did not "seriously" or "persistently" violate his parole by
clear and convincing evidence.
Generally, review of the Board's decision is limited, and we will defer to
its decision if it is supported by the record and not arbitrary, capricious[,] or
unreasonable. Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 435 N.J. Super. 377, 391 (App.
Div. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999)).
We review "'whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on
sufficient credible evidence present in the record, considering the proofs as a
whole,'" Id. at 388 (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).
A-2738-22 5 The appellant bears the burden of proving the Board's decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super.
544, 563 (App. Div. 2002); Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super.
301, 304 (App. Div. 1993).
Appellant's constitutional argument fails as a matter of law. "[P]arolees
in general[] are subject to 'continued governmental oversight and diminished
personal autonomy when they are on parole or some other form of post -release
supervision.'" J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204, 221 (2017). N.J.A.C.
10A:72-14.1(a) "applies to the imposition of a special condition prohibiting an
offender access to the Internet . . . in cases of offenders serving a special
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-2738-22
DANIEL WATKINS, a/k/a DANIEL G. WATKINS, DANIEL GLENN WATKINS JR., DANIEL G. WATKINS JR., and CHRISTOPER R. WATKINS JR., Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent. ____________________
Submitted November 4, 2024 – Decided December 23, 2024
Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
The Bank of Princeton, attorneys for appellant (Daniel J. O'Donnell, on the brief).
Matthew Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Daniel Watkins appeals the decision of the New Jersey State
Parole Board ("Board") revoking his parole supervision for life ("PSL") status
for "seriously" and "persistently" violating special conditions of his parole
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b). We conclude his special conditions are
constitutional, and the Board's decision to revoke PSL was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, and affirm.
On November 18, 2019, Watkins plead guilty to one count of third-degree
possession of child pornography contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b (5) and was
sentenced to a three-year custodial term and PSL. As part of his PSL, two
special conditions were imposed upon him: (1) he was ordered "to refrain from
the possession and/or utilization of any computer and/or device that permits
access to the Internet unless specifically authorized by the District Parole
Supervisor or designated representative" ("Special Condition One"); and (2) he
was ordered "to refrain from purchasing, viewing, downloading, possessing,
and/or creating picture, photograph, negative, film, movie, videotape, Blu -ray,
DVD, CD, CD-ROM, streaming video, video game, computer-generated or
virtual image or other representation, publication, sound recording, or live
performance that is predominately oriented to descriptions or depictions of
A-2738-22 2 sexual activity" ("Special Condition Two"). Despite these restrictions, Watkins
was given prior permission to possess an Alcatel Trac Phone with limited
internet capabilities and an Xbox video game system with internet access.
Watkins began his PSL term on May 10, 2022, after being released from
custody. On July 26, 2022, the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, the
Monroe Township Police Department, and his parole officers executed a search
warrant at Watkins's residence. Officers found a cell phone with internet
capabilities Watkins admitted he owned, hid from his parole officer, and used
to view pornography "about [twelve] times" in violation of his PSL. These
admissions were verbally relayed to officers and later memorialized in a
statement, after a Miranda waiver was executed, at the Monroe Township Police
Department.
Watkins was served with a hearing notice where his alleged parole
violations would be assessed, but he waived this hearing, while represented by
counsel, and elected instead to proceed directly to a final parole revocation
hearing. At the September 21, 2022 hearing, Watkins entered a guilty plea with
explanation. Regarding violation of Special Condition One, Watkins testified
he needed an internet-capable phone to coordinate medical services and
transportation for work and, although he attempted to obtain permission from
A-2738-22 3 his parole officer, he was denied. Regarding his violation of Special Condition
Two, Watkins explained "he viewed pornography because he is a 'grown man' .
. . . and explained that he 'felt alone.'" Watkins further testified "he d[id] not
recall how many times he viewed adult pornography, and that he 'threw the
number [12] out there' when the parole officer asked him," due to the duress he
experienced during the initial search.
The hearing officer recommended the Board revoke Watkins's PSL status
and sentence him to a twelve-month term of incarceration for "serious"
violations of his PSL special conditions, specifically expressing concern
Watkins had admitted to violating his parole less than three months after being
released from custody and "[Watkins's] actions were deceptive" and
"demonstrate[d] . . . he is not amenable to continued supervision." A two-
member Board panel concurred with this conclusion and revoked Watkins's PSL,
finding he admitted he owned the phone and hid it, and also admitted he used
the phone to view adult pornography on multiple occasions.
In the interim, we were presented with a separate appeal from Watkins,
challenging his initial sentence of PSL. We heard that appeal at an Oral
Sentencing Calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11 and remanded to the trial court on
October 19, 2022, to make more specific findings supporting the initial
A-2738-22 4 imposition of PSL. In light of our decision, the two-member panel vacated the
decision revoking his PSL on November 14, 2022.
Per our instruction, the trial court amended Watkins's judgment of
conviction with more detailed findings supporting the imposition of PSL on
December 16, 2022. In light of this more detailed judgment, which was not
appealed, the two-member Board panel reinstated its decision to revoke
Watkins's PSL status on December 22, 2022, which was affirmed by the full
Board on March 29, 2023. This appeal of the revocation of PSL followed , in
which Watkins makes two main arguments: first, he claims Special Condition
One is unconstitutionally overbroad; and second, he asserts the revocation was
improper because he did not "seriously" or "persistently" violate his parole by
clear and convincing evidence.
Generally, review of the Board's decision is limited, and we will defer to
its decision if it is supported by the record and not arbitrary, capricious[,] or
unreasonable. Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 435 N.J. Super. 377, 391 (App.
Div. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999)).
We review "'whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on
sufficient credible evidence present in the record, considering the proofs as a
whole,'" Id. at 388 (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).
A-2738-22 5 The appellant bears the burden of proving the Board's decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super.
544, 563 (App. Div. 2002); Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super.
301, 304 (App. Div. 1993).
Appellant's constitutional argument fails as a matter of law. "[P]arolees
in general[] are subject to 'continued governmental oversight and diminished
personal autonomy when they are on parole or some other form of post -release
supervision.'" J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204, 221 (2017). N.J.A.C.
10A:72-14.1(a) "applies to the imposition of a special condition prohibiting an
offender access to the Internet . . . in cases of offenders serving a special
sentence of [PSL]." Ibid. The regulation allows a special condition prohibiting
internet access if: (1) "there is a specific and articulable reason and a clear
purpose for the imposition of the Internet access condition"; and (2) "the
imposition of the Internet access condition will act as an aid to the offender's re-
entry effort, will promote rehabilitation of the offender, is deemed necessary to
protect the public, or will reduce recidivism by the offender." N.J.S.A. 10A:72 -
14.1(b)(1) and (2). Restrictions may include prohibiting an offender "from the
possession and/or utilization of any computer and/or device that permits access
to the Internet unless specifically authorized by the [parole supervisor] or
A-2738-22 6 designee." N.J.A.C. 10A:72-14(c)(1). These restrictions must be "reasonably
tailored to advance the goals of rehabilitation or public safety." J.I., 228 N.J. at
229; see also K.G. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 458 N.J. Super. 1, 35 (App. Div.
2019).
Watkins's internet restriction is constitutional and consistent with the
standards set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:72-14. The Board has "a specific and
articulable reason and clear purpose" to restrict Watkins's internet access
because his underlying offense involved uploading dozens of files from the
internet depicting the sexual exploitation of children. See J.I., N.J. at 224
("Internet conditions should be tailored to the individual [PSL] offender, taking
into account such factors as the underlying offense and any prior criminal
history, whether the Internet was used as a tool to perpetrate the offense, the
rehabilitative needs of the offender, and the imperative of public safety.").
Moreover, this restriction is "necessary to protect the public" and "reduce
recidivism" because it is tailored to Watkins's underlying conviction,
disseminating child pornography via the internet, and seeks to prevent him from
committing the same crime again. See J.B., 433 N.J. Super. at 341 (upholding
a parolee's special condition prohibiting the use of social media because it was
"legitimately aimed at restricting . . . [the] offender[] from participating in
A-2738-22 7 unwholesome interactive discussions on the Internet with children or strangers
who might fall prey to their potential recidivist behavior"). Also, Special
Condition One is reasonably tailored because it still offers Watkins the ability
to access the internet through reasonable requests to his parole supervisor and is
subject to yearly review to ensure the restriction is still reasonable , given the
passage of time and the totality of circumstances. See N.J.A.C. 10A:72-14.4.
Lastly, it is undisputed Watkins has been afforded tailored access to the internet
through the use of the Alcatel Trac phone and Xbox video game system.
With respect to the Board's revocation of PSL, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b)
instructs "[a]ny parolee who has seriously or persistently violated the conditions
of his parole may have his parole revoked . . . ." Before revocation, a parole
hearing must be held in which a hearing officer determines "[w]hether, by clear
and convincing evidence, the parolee has seriously or persistently violated the
conditions of parole" and "[w]hether parole is desirable." N.J.A.C. 10A:71-
7.12(c). "The Board has [revocation] authority only if the parolee 'has seriously
or persistently violated the conditions of his parole.'" Hobson, 435 N.J. Super.
at 391 (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60).
We decline to disturb the Board's decision to revoke Watkins's parole
because credible evidence in the record proves he violated Special Conditions
A-2738-22 8 One and Two by clear and convincing evidence, and those violations rose to the
level of "serious" or "persistent." Watkins admitted to his parole officer he
possessed an internet-capable smartphone, after having been denied permission
to obtain and use one, and used it to watch adult pornography a dozen times.
His actions were deceptive, and the Board was concerned that Watkins had
violated both special conditions of his parole less than three months after
commencing PSL. Considering the timing of the parole violation relative to his
release from custody, the Board's conclusion is not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. See Hobson, 435 N.J. Super. at 390 (reversing the Board's
conclusion a parolee has seriously violated a special condition of his parole
prohibiting him from consuming alcohol "[g]iven [the parolee's] undisputedly
consistent record of refraining from the use of alcohol during the two-year
period following his release"). Watkins's appeal is further belied by his own
signed, written admission that he "took it upon [himself] to get [an] [internet-
capable] phone" after his initial request was denied. This defiance is further
denoted by his testimony at the September 21, 2022 hearing where he admitted
to viewing pornography despite Special Condition Two because he is a "grown
man."
A-2738-22 9 We reject Watkins's unpersuasive arguments as to why his violations were
not serious or persistent, including that he did not seriously violate Special
Condition One because he needed an internet-capable phone for medical
services and coordinating transportation, and he only resorted to violating this
condition because his request for a phone "went unanswered without any review
or evaluation." The record is clear he was denied permission. Regardless,
Watkins had no authority to willingly violate Special Condition One solely
because he believed his request for an internet-capable phone was improperly
denied. Cf. In re Felmeister, 95 N.J. 431, 445 (1984) (holding respondents'
intentional violation of a court mandate was not excused by the respondents'
contention the mandate was unconstitutional). If Watkins truly believed his
request was improperly denied, he should have challenged the denial through by
motion instead of willfully violating his parole. See J.I., 228 N.J. at 229
("[R]elief from overbroad or oppressive restrictions must be achieved through
lawful means. A [PSL] offender must abide by the special conditions of his
supervision unless and until relief is granted.").
Watkins further contends his admission of watching adult pornography
twelve times in violation of Special Condition Two is neither serious nor
persistent because he has since recounted this admission as to the frequency of
A-2738-22 10 his viewings and maintains he "offered this number without knowledge or
consideration of its verity." This argument is unavailing in light of his
subsequent signed, written admission.
Accordingly, we conclude there is substantial credible evidence to affirm
the Board's decision as the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or
unreasonably.
Affirmed.
A-2738-22 11