ANTOINE SIMPKINS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-6276-04T16276-04T1

ANTOINE SIMPKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE

BOARD,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted May 23, 2006 - Decided June 14, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Hoens.

On appeal from a Final Decision of

the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Appellant, Antoine Simpkins,

submitted a pro se brief.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Michael J.

Haas, Assistant Attorney General,

of counsel; Walter C. Kowalski,

Deputy Attorney General, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Inmate petitioner, Antoine Simpkins, appeals from the State Parole Board's denial of parole and establishment of a future eligibility term of thirty-six months. Petitioner argues that the Board's decision was arbitrary because it (1) "morph[ed] delinquent acts committed by defendant [while he was a juvenile] into 'crimes'" and found them to be "'increasingly more serious'"; (2) found petitioner needed substance abuse counseling when he only occasionally smoked marijuana up until 1990 and has been abstinent for 16 years; and (3) cited petitioner's lack of education, employment, and vocational history as reasons for denying parole even though petitioner claims to have been attending high school when he was arrested.

The Board properly considered petitioner's juvenile record in determining whether he was a suitable candidate for parole. Petitioner's record spanned four years and culminated in the murder that resulted in his current confinement. The pertinent regulation requires that the Board consider, among other factors, the "[n]ature and pattern of previous convictions." N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)3. In petitioner's situation, we see nothing improper in the Board considering the juvenile adjudications especially since the rule specifically provides that the Board may also consider "any other factors deemed relevant." Ibid.

The record also reveals that petitioner has a history of drug use. Although petitioner claims he has been abstinent for sixteen years, he tested positive for drug use in 1998. Accordingly, we find no error in the Board recommending substance abuse counseling.

Petitioner does not have any employment history and withdrew from high school in the 11th grade. Even though petitioner was incarcerated as a juvenile and was unable to present any employment record, the Board was correct in finding that petitioner does not have a strong employment or education record. These factors might be tempered in weight because of petitioner's youth when arrested, but they, along with petitioner's poor vocational skills, were properly considered by the Board nevertheless.

 
In short, our review of the record, in light of petitioner's arguments and the pertinent law, does not lead us to conclude that the Board rendered an arbitrary decision. Instead, our review has convinced us that sufficient credible evidence supports the Board's determination that there was "a substantial likelihood" that the inmate would commit a crime if released on parole." See N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53(a). In addition, the Board's establishment of a thirty-six month future eligibility term appears to be a sound exercise of discretion. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(c).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6276-04T1

June 14, 2006