Derrick Roundtree v. New Jersey State Parole Board

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: November 8, 2024
• Docket: A-3471-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3471-22

DERRICK ROUNDTREE,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent. ______________________

Submitted October 23, 2024 – Decided November 8, 2024

Before Judges Mayer and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Derrick Roundtree, appellant pro se.

Matthew Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Appellant Derrick Roundtree appeals from the January 25, 2023 final

agency decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying him

parole and establishing a 144-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.

I.

In 1996, Roundtree approached a man who was leaning into his car in East

Orange. He tapped the victim on the shoulder, asked how much the car was

worth and then said, "rise the fuck out." The victim observed Roundtree with

his hands inside his waistband with a black gun in his hand. The victim escaped

as Roundtree drove off in the victim's car.

A short time later, police discovered Roundtree in the car. He fled on

foot, but was apprehended hiding in a cabinet in a basement of a nearby home.

A witness saw Roundtree carrying a handgun as he fled. The handgun was later

found in the home where Roundtree had been hiding.

A jury convicted Roundtree of first-degree carjacking, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2,

third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), and second-

degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a).

The trial court sentenced Roundtree to an aggregate fifty-year term of

imprisonment, with an eighteen-year period of parole ineligibility.

A-3471-22 2 On February 2, 2022, Roundtree became eligible for parole for the second

time. At that point, he had served more than twenty-five years in prison.

On February 4, 2022, a two-member Board panel conducted a hearing on

Roundtree's parole application. The panel considered Roundtree's extensive

criminal history. As a juvenile, he was adjudicated delinquent eleven times for

offenses that if committed by an adult would be aggravated assault, simple

assault, terroristic threats, burglary, escape, robbery, receiving stolen property,

possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a

weapon. Roundtree served two terms of juvenile incarceration. He also was

sentenced to three terms of probation and violated probation twice by

committing new offenses.

As an adult, Roundtree was convicted of assault, escape, robbery, theft,

and possession of a controlled dangerous substance prior to the carjacking. He

served two prior terms of incarceration, two prior periods on parole, and one

prior term of probation.

During his incarceration, Roundtree accumulated forty-six disciplinary

infractions between April 1997 and May 2021. Twenty-two of those infractions

were "asterisk" offenses, the most serious disciplinary charges in prison.

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Since his last parole hearing in October 2013, Roundtree

A-3471-22 3 accumulated sixteen disciplinary infractions, of which ten were asterisk

offenses, including: attempted assault, two incidents of threatening another with

bodily harm, two incidents of fighting with another person, three incidents of

conduct which disrupts, and two incidents of refusing to submit to a search. At

the time of the hearing, Roundtree's most recent disciplinary adjudication was

for fighting with another person. The sanctions imposed for Roundtree's

disciplinary infractions included detention, administrative segregation, and the

loss of 3,075 days of commutation credits.

The panel questioned Roundtree about his present crimes, criminal

thinking and conduct related to those crimes, his lifestyle and social and personal

choices that led to his extensive and repetitive criminal record, his significant

and serious prison disciplinary history, and his participation while incarcerated

in programs that may have provided insight into his criminal thinking and

conduct. The panel's objective when posing those questions was to determine

whether Roundtree had "developed interpersonal skills, along with the ability to

use proper judgment and exercise control in stressful situations."

The panel determined Roundtree still struggled with his criminal thinking

and conduct, and minimized the severity of his actions. The panel found that

Roundtree still exhibited criminal conduct and non-compliant behavioral

A-3471-22 4 patterns, despite twenty-six years of incarceration, his older age, and his

completion of behavioral and therapeutic programs. Roundtree was, according

to the panel, unable to articulate the motivations and triggers that led him to

engage in criminal conduct. Instead, he provided excuses and false narratives,

and redirected blame for his actions.

The panel noted Roundtree's prison sentence would have expired before

the date of the hearing had he not lost approximately eight and a half years of

commutation credits as sanctions for his extensive disciplinary infractions. In

response, Roundtree stated he had "made a mistake" and was ready to go home,

but understood his infractions "make[] you look . . . bad in front of" the Board.

The panel questioned Roundtree with respect to his refusal to submit to

searches in 2019. He failed to provide meaningful insight into these infractions.

The disciplinary record indicates that when directed to submit to a search prior

to being transported to a medical appointment, Roundtree stated, "[t]hat's gay.

I'm not doing that." When questioned about that remark at the parole hearing,

Roundtree disputed the accuracy of the disciplinary record. He took a similar

approach when questioned about other disciplinary infractions, stating about the

disciplinary records, "[i]f that's what they say, man there's nothing I can change

to make them say it (sic)."

A-3471-22 5 The panel noted Roundtree was infraction free for a twenty-month period

between 2016 and 2017 and completed rehabilitative and cognitive programs in

prison, including the "Cage Your Rage" program. However, the panel noted

Roundtree committed disciplinary infractions after completing the programs.

The panel also discussed Roundtree's removal from a substance abuse

treatment program. When asked why he was removed from the program,

Roundtree provided explanations inconsistent with prison records. Roundtree

stated he was discharged from the program either for having bleach and wax in

his cell or for refusing an order to turn down his radio. Prison records, however,

established that Roundtree was discharged from the program for refusing to obey

a staff member's order to lower his voice while singing and instead raising his

voice even louder. The panel found this conduct highlighted Roundtree's

tendency to "antagonize others." Roundtree agreed with that observation and

stated he was "practicing" not reacting to others in that fashion. Roundtree

admitted if the panel denied his release on parole he might be charged with

another disciplinary infraction because he is "a human being."

The panel also considered institutional reports indicating a favorable

institutional adjustment, Roundtree's attempts to enroll in programs to which he

A-3471-22 6 was not admitted, and the restoration of commutation time during infraction-

free periods.

On February 4, 2022, the two-member panel denied Roundtree release on

parole and referred the matter to a three-member panel to establish an FET

outside of the administrative guidelines. The two-member panel based its

decision on: (1) the facts and circumstances of Roundtree's criminal offenses;

(2) his extensive and repetitive criminal record; (3) the increasingly serious

nature of his criminal offenses; (4) his incarceration on multiple offenses; (5)

his failure to refrain from criminal activity despite prior periods of probation

and incarceration; (6) his numerous, persistent, and serious institutional

infractions while incarcerated; (7) his commission of disciplinary infractions

after his last parole hearing; and (8) his insufficient problem solving, including

a lack of insight into his criminal behavior and minimization of his conduct. The

two-member panel also relied on confidential information, which included a

comprehensive mental health evaluation conducted specifically to determine

whether Roundtree was fit for release on parole, see N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2(c), as

well as a risk assessment evaluation indicating a high risk of recidivism.

After Roundtree submitted a letter of mitigation, the two-member panel

issued an amended decision. It noted: (1) on December 9, 1985, Roundtree was

A-3471-22 7 sentenced to probation for a term of two years; (2) on February 21, 1987,

Roundtree was sentenced to probation for a term of one year, which he violated;

(3) on June 26, 1987, Roundtree committed burglary while on probation, and

was sentenced to another one-year term of probation for that offense; and (4) on

March 25, 1988, Roundtree was sentenced to an indeterminate term for multiple

offenses committed while on probation. The panel's substantive decision did

not change.

On May 18, 2022, a three-member Board panel established a 144-month

FET. The panel explained its reasoning in a comprehensive and detailed eleven-

page decision. The panel's reasons for imposition of the FET included

Roundtree's: (1) lack of understanding of the underlying dynamics of his

personality defects that led him to engage in criminal thinking and conduct; (2)

inadequate progress in the rehabilitation process; (3) continued commission of

serious and extensive institutional infractions; (4) lack of understanding of the

motivations and triggers that result in his use of poor judgment and criminal

behavior; and (5) failure to take accountability for his poor judgment and

criminal conduct.

On January 25, 2023, the Board issued a final agency decision affirming

the denial of parole and the imposition of a 144-month FET. The Board adopted

A-3471-22 8 the findings of the two-member and three-member panels and found that there

was a substantial likelihood that Roundtree would commit another crime if

released on parole. The Board noted that Roundtree's criminal behavior was

"deeply rooted," as evidenced by his extensive criminal record and continuing

institutional infractions. The Board also found that, although Roundtree may

have made some progress, his efforts at rehabilitation were insufficient. The

Board noted Roundtree had a serious and extensive substance abuse history

beginning when he was seventeen and committed the carjacking while under the

influence of cocaine.

This appeal followed. Defendant raises the following argument

THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD DENYING PAROLE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND AMOUNTED TO A DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS[.] THEREFORE, THE FET SHOULD BE VACATED AND A NEW PAROLE HEARING SHOULD BE ORDERED.

II.

We accord considerable deference to the Board, and our review of its decision

is limited. Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175, 179 (App. Div. 2004).

We will overturn a Board decision only if it is arbitrary and capricious. Perry

v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 459 N.J. Super. 186, 193 (App. Div. 2019). An

A-3471-22 9 appellate court must not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and an

agency's decision is accorded a strong presumption of reasonableness.

McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002).

The burden of showing that an action was arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious

rests upon the appellant. Barone v. Dep't of Human Servs., 210 N.J. Super. 276,

285 (App. Div. 1986), aff'd, 107 N.J. 355 (1987).

For offenses committed before August 18, 1997, "the Parole Board may

deny parole release if it appears from a preponderance of the evidence that 'there

is a substantial likelihood that the inmate will commit a crime under the laws of

this State if released on parole at such time.'" Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,

336 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting L. 1979, c. 441, § 9). When

reaching a decision under this standard, the Board must consider the aggregate

of all pertinent factors, including those set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:71 -3.11(b).

In addition, an inmate serving a sentence for carjacking is ordinarily

assigned a twenty-seven-month FET after a denial of parole. See N.J.A.C.

10A:71-3.21(a)(1). The Board may increase or decrease the standard FET "by

up to nine months when, in the opinion of the Board panel, the severity of the

crime for which the inmate was denied parole and the prior criminal record or

other characteristics of the inmate warrant such adjustment." N.J.A.C. 10A:71-

A-3471-22 10 3.21(c). However, a panel may establish an FET outside these guidelines if the

presumptive FET is "clearly inappropriate due to the inmate's lack of

satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal behavior. "

N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(d). In making that determination, the panel shall consider

the same non-exhaustive factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b) that are

considered when determining suitability for parole.

Significantly, the 144-month FET commences on Roundtree's parole

eligibility date and, because he committed his crimes prior to August 19, 1997 ,

his FET can be reduced by commutation, work, and minimum custody credits.

Based on the application of Roundtree's credits at the time the Board filed i ts

brief, Roundtree's parole eligibility date is August 29, 2030. This date will be

further reduced by the application of any work and minimum custody credits

Roundtree earns in the future, resulting in a possible parole eligibility date of

August 31, 2029. Thus, Roundtree's actual FET will be substantially less than

144 months.

After carefully considering the record in light of the applicable legal

principles, we affirm the Board's well-reasoned final agency decision, which is

supported by sufficient credible evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add only the

following brief comments.

A-3471-22 11 We disagree with Roundtree's argument that the Board's decision is based

primarily on his juvenile record. While the Board considered Roundtree's

extensive history of juvenile delinquency, the record demonstrates the Board

also relied on numerous other factors, including Roundtree's extensive adult

criminal history, lengthy and continuing prison disciplinary record, lack of

insight into the motivations and triggers leading to his criminal behavior, and a

risk assessment evaluation indicating a high risk for recidivism.

Nor do we see support in the record for Roundtree's argument that the

three-member panel and the Board failed adequately to explain the basis for their

imposition of a 144-month FET. The decisions of those entities provide detailed

explanations for their conclusions that an FET outside of the guidelines was

warranted.

To the extent we have not addressed other arguments raised by Roundtree,

we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-3471-22 12