ABDUL SAMAD v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2617-04T12617-04T1

ABDUL SAMAD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE

BOARD,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 6, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Lefelt and Seltzer.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the

New Jersey State Parole Board.

Appellant, Abdul Samad, submitted a

pro se brief.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Patrick

DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General,

of counsel; Walter C. Kowalski,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Abdul Samad, a prisoner at Riverfront State Prison, is serving a fifteen-year sentence for terroristic threats and robbery. Petitioner appeals from the State Parole Board's November 17, 2004, final decision affirming the Adult Board Panel's September 17, 2004, decision denying parole and establishing a sixteen month future eligibility term.

Petitioner argues that the record does not support the Board's conclusion that there was a substantial likelihood he would commit another crime if paroled, and that the Board inappropriately relied upon "virtually [the] same reasons" to deny parole as did the Board in his prior hearing. Petitioner points to his "total responsibility [and] demonstrated remorse and sympathy for the crime and the victim" together with his attendance at substance abuse and other programs geared toward his reintegration into society. Petitioner asserts that the punitive purposes of his sentence have been presumptively satisfied, it was wrong of the Board to rely on the serious nature of his crime, and he "has demonstrated and attained a level of rehabilitation that can assure there is no likelihood that he would or will engage in criminal conduct if released." Therefore, petitioner argues that parole should have been granted.

The Board denied parole because petitioner had an extensive prior criminal record, had been incarcerated for a multi-crime conviction, had demonstrated little insight into his criminal behavior, and had not sufficiently addressed his substance abuse problem. Because of mitigating factors, such as petitioner's participation in programs and relatively decent prison adjustment record, the Board reduced the presumptive future eligibility term from twenty-seven months to sixteen months, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(a)1, but still found a substantial likelihood of recidivism.

 
We have carefully reviewed the record in light of petitioner's arguments and the pertinent law and have come to the following four conclusions, which require that we affirm the Board's decision denying parole. (1) Sufficient evidence supports the decision. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). (2) The Board properly considered petitioner's entire criminal record. See Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 331 N.J. Super. 577, 610-11 (App. Div. 2000), aff'd and modified in part, 166 N.J. 113 (2001). (3) The Board did not rest its decision solely on the serious nature of petitioner's current conviction, but instead relied upon the factors specified in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11. (4) The Board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 649 (1988).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2617-04T1

December 20, 2005