New Jersey State Parole Board v. Joshua Burton
This text of New Jersey State Parole Board v. Joshua Burton (New Jersey State Parole Board v. Joshua Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3907-21
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent,
v.
JOSHUA BURTON,
Appellant. ________________________
Submitted May 7, 2024 – Decided May 14, 2024
Before Judges Puglisi and Haas.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Fernandez Garcia, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael Garcia, of counsel and on the brief).
Matthew J. 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 Joshua Burton appeals from the June 29, 2022 State Parole
Board (Board) final agency decision revoking his parole and establishing a
fourteen-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
On September 14, 2012, Burton attempted to sexually assault two women
in separate attacks in a public library. He followed one of the women into a
bathroom before attacking her. Burton ripped the woman's shirt, pulled down
her pants, and attempted to anally penetrate her. Burton fled the bathroom after
another woman entered and began yelling at him to stop the attack.
That same day, Burton accosted another woman in a library stairway .
Burton grabbed the woman's breast, threatened to kill her, and began to pull her
up the stairs. The woman was able to break free. Someone called 9-1-1 and the
police arrested Burton near the library.
In June 2013, Burton pled guilty to one count of second-degree sexual
assault and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. The trial court
sentenced Burton to an aggregate five-year term in prison and Parole
Supervision for Life (PSL).
As part of his PSL, Burton was subject to a number of conditions upon his
release from prison, including conditions that required him to: reside at a
residence approved by his parole officer; obtain permission from his parole
A-3907-21 2 officer prior to any change in residence; participate in and successfully complete
an appropriate community counseling or treatment program as directed by his
parole officer; successfully complete the Electronic Monitoring Program
(EMP); and participate in and successfully complete the Community Resource
Center (CRC) program.
On January 28, 2021, Burton was discharged from his outpatient drug
treatment program after he was observed masturbating during a Zoom
counseling session. On March 5, 2021, Burton's CRC program discharged him
due to his repeated noncompliance with program rules. While on EMP, Burton
violated his curfew and failed to successfully complete the program's
requirements. Burton was placed in a residential program, which he completed
on June 10, 2021.
The next day, Burton's parole officer referred him to the Restoration
Shelter (Shelter) in Newark. The Shelter terminated him from the program on
June 17, 2021, after he was seen entering the woman's bathroom and remaining
there, which echoed what he had done in his original offense. After his
discharge, Burton's whereabouts were unknown for three days and he failed to
obtain permission from his parole officer prior to changing his address.
A-3907-21 3 Burton was thereafter served with a Notice of Probable Cause Hearing,
which advised him of the parole conditions he had violated and his rights at the
hearing. Burton elected to waive the probable cause hearing and the matter
proceeded as a final parole revocation hearing.
During the revocation hearing, the hearing officer heard testimony from
Parole Officer Barragan, Lorena Inestroza, and Shawn Favors. Barragan
provided a summary of Burton's parole supervision history, including details
and documents related to each violation Burton committed. Inestroza, who was
a counselor at the Shelter, testified regarding the June 17, 2021 incident in the
women's bathroom. Favors, who was a counselor at the CRC program, testified
regarding the January 28, 2021 incident where Burton was observed
masturbating during a Zoom counseling session. 1
At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer found by clear and
convincing evidence that Burton violated the conditions of PSL, and
recommended that Burton's parole be revoked with the imposition of a fourteen-
month FET. On January 19, 2022, a two-member Board Panel reviewed the
1 Favors was not present during the Zoom call, but reviewed a video provided by a person who was present and confirmed that Burton was the man seen in the video. A-3907-21 4 record and concurred with the hearing officer's determination. The panel
revoked Burton's parole and imposed a fourteen-month FET.
Burton filed an administrative appeal of this decision and, on June 29,
2022, the full Board affirmed the panel's determination. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Burton argues the Board's decision was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence and that the hearing officer inappropriately allowed
hearsay evidence into the record. We have considered these contentions in light
of the record and the applicable legal principles and conclude they are without
sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). We add the following comments.
"Parole Board decisions are highly 'individualized discretionary
appraisals.'" Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. ("Trantino VI"), 166 N.J. 113,
173 (2001) (quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359
(1973)). As such, we give great deference to the Board's "expertise in the
specialized area of parole supervision." J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J.
204, 230 (2017).
In reviewing a final decision of the Board, this court considers: (1)
whether the Board's action is consistent with the applicable law; (2) whether
there is substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole to support its
A-3907-21 5 findings; and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the Board erroneously
reached a conclusion that could not have been reasonably made based on the
relevant facts. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. ("Trantino IV"), 154 N.J. 19,
24 (1998). Consequently, where the Board has applied the correct legal
standard, our role is limited to determining whether the decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. 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." Ibid.
Applying these principles, we are satisfied that the Board's revocation of
Burton's parole and the imposition of a fourteen-month FET was supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record and was neither arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable. Contrary to Burton's contentions on appeal, there was ample
non-hearsay evidence in the record to support the Board's findings and
conclusions. This evidence included the video of the Zoom counseling session;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
New Jersey State Parole Board v. Joshua Burton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-jersey-state-parole-board-v-joshua-burton-njsuperctappdiv-2024.