WILLIAM MUNDORFF VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)
This text of WILLIAM MUNDORFF VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) (WILLIAM MUNDORFF VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)) 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0594-18T3
WILLIAM MUNDORFF,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent. ______________________
Submitted February 24, 2020 – Decided April 22, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
William Mundorff, 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 William Mundorff, an inmate at South Woods State Prison, appeals the
New Jersey State Parole Board's (the Board) August 29, 2018 final agency
decision denying him parole and imposing a 180-month Future Eligibility Term
(FET). We affirm.
Following a jury's guilty verdict two months earlier, Mundorff was
convicted on May 20, 1981 for murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, and aggravated sexual
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, of a nineteen-year-old woman, and given a life
sentence with a mandatory-minimum term of twenty-five years.
In July 2005, Mundorff became eligible for parole for the first time after
serving approximately twenty-four years. Parole was denied, and a FET of 180-
months was imposed.
In 2017, Mundorff became eligible for parole for the second time. A
parole hearing officer referred the matter to a two-member Board panel, which
on June 22, 2017, denied parole. In determining there was a substantial
likelihood Mundorff would commit a new crime if he was released, the panel
cited numerous reasons, including but not limited to: the facts and circumstances
of the murder offense; an extensive and increasingly more serious prior criminal
record; the commission of numerous, persistent, and serious prison institutional
infractions, sixteen since his last parole hearing with the most recent one in
A-0594-18T3 2 January 2016; lack of remorse for the victim; risk assessment evaluation; and
mental health issues. The panel also acknowledged several mitigating factors,
including but not limited to: opportunities on community supervision completed
without any violations; participation in institutional programs; favorable
institutional adjustment; restored commutation time; and achievement of
minimal custody status. In addition, the panel requested a three-member Board
panel establish a FET outside the presumptive twenty-seven-month limit.
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(a)(1).
On August 23, 2017, the three-member panel confirmed the denial of
parole and established a 180-month FET. Six weeks later, the panel set forth its
reasoning in a seven-page written decision, essentially citing the same reasons
for denial and recognizing the same mitigating factors as the two-member panel
did in denying parole. The panel noted that with commutation time, earned work
credits, and minimum custody credits, Mundorff's parole eligibility date is in
March 2025.
Mundorff appealed to the full Board, which affirmed the panels' decisions
for essentially the same reasons in a four-page written decision.
In this appeal, Mundorff contends:
A-0594-18T3 3 POINT I
THERE WERE INSUFFICIENT REASONS TO DENY PAROLE.
POINT II
THE PUNITIVE ASPECT HAS BEEN SERVED.
POINT III
A LIFE SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE THE DEATH PENALTY.
POINT IV
THE ACOLI[1] RULING SHOULD NOT APPLY.
POINT V
THE ACOLI RULING VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS.
In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we consider: (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 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., 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998). The Board's
1 Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213 (2016) A-0594-18T3 4 decision to grant or deny parole turns on whether "there is a substantial
likelihood the inmate will commit" another crime if released. Williams v. N.J.
State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1, 7-8 (App. Div. 2000). The Board must
consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)(1)-(23) in making
its decision. The Board, however, is not required to consider each and every
factor; rather, it should consider those applicable to each case. McGowan v.
N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 561 (App. Div. 2002).
An inmate serving a minimum term in excess of fourteen years is
ordinarily assigned a twenty-seven-month FET after a denial of parole. See
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(a)(1). However, N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.21(d) allows a three-
member panel to establish a FET outside of the administrative guidelines if the
presumptive twenty-seven-month FET is "clearly inappropriate due to the
inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future
criminal behavior."
We have considered the contentions raised by Mundorff and conclude they
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion, R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Board
in its thorough decision. We add the following remarks.
A-0594-18T3 5 The Board's action is consistent with the applicable law, there is
substantial credible evidence in the record to support its findings, and the Board
reached conclusions based on relevant facts. The Board made extensive
findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrating the basis for its decision
to deny Mundorff's parole. The Board provided multiple reasons for imposing
a 180-month FET, which although lengthy, is neither arbitrary nor capricious ,
and Mundorff may actually be eligible to be released on parole in March 2025.
Hence, the FET is not as severe as it may first appear. On this record, we have
no reason to second-guess those findings or conclusions and thus defer to the
Board's expertise in these matters.
Further, because we affirm the Board's decisions, there is no reason to
consider whether Acoli applies as Mundorff argues. In Acoli, the Board had
previously denied the inmate's application for parole twice. 224 N.J. at 216. On
the inmate's third application, the two-member panel again denied parole, and
the three-member panel established a 120-month FET. Id. at 218. The inmate
filed an administrative appeal, and the Board considered the record developed
by the hearing officer and panels but did not conduct a full hearing. Ibid. The
Board again denied parole and the inmate appealed. Id. at 219. In an
unpublished opinion, we ordered the Board to "expeditiously set conditions for
A-0594-18T3 6 . . . parole" and declined to remand the matter to the Board. Ibid. The Supreme
Court granted the Board's petition for certification, and the Board argued this
court erred by ordering the inmate's parole rather than a hearing before the full
Board as required by N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(f).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
WILLIAM MUNDORFF VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-mundorff-vs-new-jersey-state-parole-board-new-jersey-state-parole-njsuperctappdiv-2020.