NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-5364-17T4
PEDRO VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________
Submitted May 26, 2020 – Decided September 9, 2020
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Pedro Vasquez, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Pedro Vasquez appeals from the New Jersey State Parole Board's (Board)
February 27, 2019 1 final agency decision denying him parole and imposing a
sixty-month future eligibility term (FET). On appeal, he asserts that the Board's
decision was not supported by the record. Additionally, he contends the Board
erred in failing to explain why it withheld a confidential document from him.
We affirm the Board's denial of parole but remand for the Board to articulate its
reason for nondisclosure of the confidential document.
Vasquez is serving a life sentence, with a mandatory minimum of thirty
years, for the 1988 murder of his girlfriend. Vasquez and his girlfriend were
arguing, when a physical altercation ensued. Vasquez strangled and stabbed his
girlfriend, which caused her death, and then dismembered her body into fourteen
parts and discarded the parts in various locations throughout Newark.
Vasquez became eligible for parole on March 3, 2018. He received an
initial hearing on December 29, 2017, and the hearing officer referred the matter
to a Board panel. On January 8, 2018, a two-member panel held a hearing and
referred Vasquez for a full Board hearing, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.18(c).
1 The notice of appeal indicates a final agency decision dated June 6, 2018, but this is incorrect, as the June 6, 2018 decision was the first decision the Board issued after the parole hearing. After Vasquez filed this appeal on July 16, 2018, we temporarily remanded the matter for issuance of a final agency decision. A-5364-17T4 2 After a hearing on April 3, 2018, the full Board denied Vasquez parole
and referred the matter for establishment of a FET that might be in excess of
administrative guidelines. The Board based its decision on the serious nature of
the offense, incarceration for multiple offenses,2 and insufficient problem
resolution, evinced by Vasquez's lack of insight into his criminal behavior and
minimization of his conduct. In mitigation, the Board considered Vasquez's lack
of a prior offense record, lack of infractions while incarcerated, program
participation revealing a favorable institutional adjustment, minimum custody
status, and risk assessment evaluation indicating a low risk of recidivism.
On June 6, 2018, the full Board established a sixty-month FET.3 In
establishing a FET outside the administrative guidelines, the Board relied on the
same factors supporting its denial of parole, and it noted that a confidential
document played a "significant role" in establishing the FET. The Board found
that Vasquez "downplayed how the relationship with [his] girlfriend had
2 In addition to first-degree murder, Vasquez was also convicted of and sentenced to a concurrent three-year term for third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. 3 The FET commenced on Vasquez's parole eligibility date of March 3, 2018, and it will be reduced by commutation, work, and minimum custody credits. Accordingly, Vasquez's projected parole eligibility date is in February 2021. The Board considered this information when establishing the sixty-month FET. A-5364-17T4 3 deteriorated negatively," revealing that he was still "unable to understand the
depth of the behavioral and emotional issues that affected [his] violent decision-
making" and could not "recognize stressors, cues and triggers that negatively
impact upon [him]." Vasquez needed to make more progress in acknowledging
his "emotional distress and feelings of anger [that] dictated [his] negative
behavior."
Vasquez appealed, and on February 27, 2019, the full Board affirmed the
denial of parole and the imposition of the sixty-month FET. The Board
reiterated that Vasquez "exhibit[ed] insufficient problem resolution" and noted
that although he participated in rehabilitative programs and may have made
some progress, he gained little insight into the causes of his criminal behavior.
On appeal, Vasquez raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I:
THE PAROLE BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY PAROLE AND SET A FET DATE OUTSIDE THE GUIDELINES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT APPELLANT WILL COMMIT A CRIME UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE IF RELEASED ON PAROLE AND IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AS IT IS NOT BASED ON RATIONAL OR REASON.
A-5364-17T4 4 POINT II:
THE PAROLE [BOARD] FAILED TO ARTICULATE THE REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING THE CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL USED TO DENY PAROLE AND SET A FET OF [SIXTY] MONTHS (Not raised below).
"Board decisions are highly 'individualized discretionary appraisals,'" and
such "determinations 'are always judicially reviewable for arbitrariness.'"
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino VI), 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001) (first
quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359 (1973); then
quoting Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 58 N.J. 238, 242 (1971)); accord Acoli
v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222-23 (2016) ("Judicial review of the
Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that
constrains other administrative action."). Therefore, we will uphold the Board's
decision if it applied the correct legal principles and its factual findings are
supported by sufficient, credible evidence in the record. Trantino v. N.J. State
Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998) (quoting N.J. State Parole Bd.
v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988)).
After considering the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we
affirm the denial of parole substantially for the reasons expressed in the Board's
well-reasoned decision. We add the following.
A-5364-17T4 5 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 . . . if released on
parole.'" Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div.
2000) (quoting L. 1979, c. 441, § 9); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.10(a). Under this
standard, the Board must consider the aggregate of all pertinent factors set forth
at N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b). In reaching its decision, the Board considered its
interview of Vasquez, his pre-parole report, and his case file documents,
including the confidential document, and it evaluated relevant statutory factors,
even finding several mitigating factors. We agree with the Board's conclusion
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-5364-17T4
PEDRO VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________
Submitted May 26, 2020 – Decided September 9, 2020
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Pedro Vasquez, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Pedro Vasquez appeals from the New Jersey State Parole Board's (Board)
February 27, 2019 1 final agency decision denying him parole and imposing a
sixty-month future eligibility term (FET). On appeal, he asserts that the Board's
decision was not supported by the record. Additionally, he contends the Board
erred in failing to explain why it withheld a confidential document from him.
We affirm the Board's denial of parole but remand for the Board to articulate its
reason for nondisclosure of the confidential document.
Vasquez is serving a life sentence, with a mandatory minimum of thirty
years, for the 1988 murder of his girlfriend. Vasquez and his girlfriend were
arguing, when a physical altercation ensued. Vasquez strangled and stabbed his
girlfriend, which caused her death, and then dismembered her body into fourteen
parts and discarded the parts in various locations throughout Newark.
Vasquez became eligible for parole on March 3, 2018. He received an
initial hearing on December 29, 2017, and the hearing officer referred the matter
to a Board panel. On January 8, 2018, a two-member panel held a hearing and
referred Vasquez for a full Board hearing, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.18(c).
1 The notice of appeal indicates a final agency decision dated June 6, 2018, but this is incorrect, as the June 6, 2018 decision was the first decision the Board issued after the parole hearing. After Vasquez filed this appeal on July 16, 2018, we temporarily remanded the matter for issuance of a final agency decision. A-5364-17T4 2 After a hearing on April 3, 2018, the full Board denied Vasquez parole
and referred the matter for establishment of a FET that might be in excess of
administrative guidelines. The Board based its decision on the serious nature of
the offense, incarceration for multiple offenses,2 and insufficient problem
resolution, evinced by Vasquez's lack of insight into his criminal behavior and
minimization of his conduct. In mitigation, the Board considered Vasquez's lack
of a prior offense record, lack of infractions while incarcerated, program
participation revealing a favorable institutional adjustment, minimum custody
status, and risk assessment evaluation indicating a low risk of recidivism.
On June 6, 2018, the full Board established a sixty-month FET.3 In
establishing a FET outside the administrative guidelines, the Board relied on the
same factors supporting its denial of parole, and it noted that a confidential
document played a "significant role" in establishing the FET. The Board found
that Vasquez "downplayed how the relationship with [his] girlfriend had
2 In addition to first-degree murder, Vasquez was also convicted of and sentenced to a concurrent three-year term for third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. 3 The FET commenced on Vasquez's parole eligibility date of March 3, 2018, and it will be reduced by commutation, work, and minimum custody credits. Accordingly, Vasquez's projected parole eligibility date is in February 2021. The Board considered this information when establishing the sixty-month FET. A-5364-17T4 3 deteriorated negatively," revealing that he was still "unable to understand the
depth of the behavioral and emotional issues that affected [his] violent decision-
making" and could not "recognize stressors, cues and triggers that negatively
impact upon [him]." Vasquez needed to make more progress in acknowledging
his "emotional distress and feelings of anger [that] dictated [his] negative
behavior."
Vasquez appealed, and on February 27, 2019, the full Board affirmed the
denial of parole and the imposition of the sixty-month FET. The Board
reiterated that Vasquez "exhibit[ed] insufficient problem resolution" and noted
that although he participated in rehabilitative programs and may have made
some progress, he gained little insight into the causes of his criminal behavior.
On appeal, Vasquez raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I:
THE PAROLE BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY PAROLE AND SET A FET DATE OUTSIDE THE GUIDELINES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT APPELLANT WILL COMMIT A CRIME UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE IF RELEASED ON PAROLE AND IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AS IT IS NOT BASED ON RATIONAL OR REASON.
A-5364-17T4 4 POINT II:
THE PAROLE [BOARD] FAILED TO ARTICULATE THE REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING THE CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL USED TO DENY PAROLE AND SET A FET OF [SIXTY] MONTHS (Not raised below).
"Board decisions are highly 'individualized discretionary appraisals,'" and
such "determinations 'are always judicially reviewable for arbitrariness.'"
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino VI), 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001) (first
quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359 (1973); then
quoting Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 58 N.J. 238, 242 (1971)); accord Acoli
v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222-23 (2016) ("Judicial review of the
Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that
constrains other administrative action."). Therefore, we will uphold the Board's
decision if it applied the correct legal principles and its factual findings are
supported by sufficient, credible evidence in the record. Trantino v. N.J. State
Parole Bd. (Trantino IV), 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998) (quoting N.J. State Parole Bd.
v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988)).
After considering the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we
affirm the denial of parole substantially for the reasons expressed in the Board's
well-reasoned decision. We add the following.
A-5364-17T4 5 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 . . . if released on
parole.'" Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div.
2000) (quoting L. 1979, c. 441, § 9); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.10(a). Under this
standard, the Board must consider the aggregate of all pertinent factors set forth
at N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b). In reaching its decision, the Board considered its
interview of Vasquez, his pre-parole report, and his case file documents,
including the confidential document, and it evaluated relevant statutory factors,
even finding several mitigating factors. We agree with the Board's conclusion
that Vasquez's lack of insight into the causes of his violent acts warranted a
finding of a substantial likelihood that he would commit another crime if
released. Under these circumstances, denial of parole was well within the
Board's discretion.
Likewise, we discern no basis to disturb the sixty-month FET. Ordinarily,
an inmate serving a sentence for murder is assigned a twenty-seven-month FET,
increased or decreased by up to nine months at the Board's discretion. N.J.A.C.
10A:71-3.21(a), (c). However, the Board may depart from this standard if, upon
consideration of the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11, it "is clearly
A-5364-17T4 6 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). Given the
Board's well-supported finding that Vasquez failed to demonstrate satisfactory
progress after thirty years, an additional thirty-three months over the ordinary
term is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
However, we are troubled that the Board did not articulate a reason in its
files for withholding from Vasquez the confidential document on which it
significantly relied in establishing the FET. When the Board declines to disclose
confidential documents to an inmate, it must identify the document as
confidential and also note the reason for nondisclosure in its files. N.J.A.C.
10A:71-2.2(c); Thompson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 210 N.J. Super. 107, 126
(App. Div. 1986). We discern no notation in the Board's files explaining that it
withheld the document to avoid interfering with Vasquez's rehabilitation or his
relationship with his therapist or to otherwise ensure the safe operation of the
prison. Thompson, 210 N.J. Super. at 123. Because the Board did not justify
the nondisclosure in its files, we remand the matter to the Board to comply with
this requirement. Should the Board determine that disclosure is appropriate,
Vasquez may review the withheld document, and the Board shall reconsider the
FET.
A-5364-17T4 7 To the extent we have not addressed Vasquez's remaining arguments, we
conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-5364-17T4 8