REGINALD JACKSON v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5057-07T35057-07T3

REGINALD JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

____________________________________

 

Submitted May 19, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Collester and Grall.

On appeal from the New Jersey State

Parole Board.

Reginald Jackson, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen M. Hale,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Reginald Jackson is an inmate currently incarcerated at Bayside State Prison in Leesburg. He appeals from a final decision of the State Parole Board denying him parole and establishing a future eligibility term (FET) of eighty-four months.

Jackson is serving an aggregate term of thirty-five years' incarceration imposed as a consequence of his convictions for aggravated manslaughter and attempted murder. The crimes were committed in 1990 and 1991 and involved different victims. Since his incarceration, Jackson has committed twenty-four infractions of prison regulations. His institutional record includes recent infractions, two during the interval between the parole hearings conducted on this application for parole by the two- and three-member panels of the Board.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the comprehensive decision of the three-member panel dated February 21, 2008 and Deputy Director Curry's letter of May 29, 2008 reporting the Board's final decision approving the three-member panel's determinations.

Jackson contends that the eighty-four-month FET established is illegal and unconstitutional because the regulations do not provide "a schedule or scale" to guide the Board's exercise of discretion. He also argues that the Board's reasons for denying parole and imposing a FET of eighty-four months are not supported by sufficient credible evidence or adequate factual findings. Those arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant more than a brief description of the standards that guide the Board's exercise of discretion in establishing an FET. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(d) permits the Board to establish an FET beyond the presumptive term only when the Board determines that the presumptive term "is clearly inappropriate due to the inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal behavior." In making that determination, the Board must consider the "factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11." Ibid. The Board's conclusion that a FET of eighty-four months is appropriate in this case is fully supported by the record and consistent with the applicable standard.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5057-07T3

June 8, 2009