MANUEL F. CRUZ v. STATE PAROLE BOARD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1715-04T11715-04T1

MANUEL F. CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE PAROLE BOARD,

-Respondent.

__________________________________

 
Submitted: September 13, 2005

Decided:

Before Judges Kestin and Seltzer.

On appeal from the State Parole Board.

Manuel F. Cruz, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Manuel Cruz, is an inmate in the State prison system serving two consecutive ten-year terms on convictions, after a jury trial, for reckless manslaughter based upon his conduct in driving a motor vehicle. The sentences were imposed on August 25, 1995, with 469 days of jail time credit. Petitioner appeals from the August 4, 2004 decision of the State Parole Board adopting a seventy-two month future eligibility term initially established by panels of the Board in December 2000 and March 2001. He argues that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Alternatively, he contends that the Board should refer him to federal authorities for deportation to his native Portugal.

The decisions of administrative agencies, including the Parole Board, are attended by a presumption of validity. See City of Newark v. Natural Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530, 539-40, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S. Ct. 400, 66 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1980). They should not be overturned on judicial review unless manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; lacking support in the evidentiary record; or violating statutory standards and policies. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); Campbell v. Department of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). The burden of establishing a defect in the administrative determination rests with the person challenging it. See Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301, 304-05 (App. Div. 1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 469 (1994). We are not to substitute our judgment for a well-considered and adequately supported discretionary determination of an administrative agency applying its expertise within the subject matter field committed to it by the Legislature. See New Jersey Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J. 544, 562-63 (1978).

We have reviewed the record in this matter in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties, the pertinent principles of law, and the foregoing standards of review. We discern no abuse of discretion or any manifest misapplication of prevailing standards in the decision reached by the Parole Board. The Board has made a determination fairly within the bounds of its evaluative authority, see Trantino v. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001); Puchalski v. State Parole Bd., 104 N.J. Super. 294, 299-300 (App. Div.), aff'd, 55 N.J. 113 (1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938, 90 S. Ct. 1841, 26 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1970), and we are obliged to respect it.

 
Accordingly, we affirm.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1715-04T1

September 21, 2005