TIMOTHY MENNIG v. STATE PAROLE BOARD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6007-04T36007-04T3

TIMOTHY MENNIG,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

__________________________________________________

 

Submitted February 1, 2006 - Decided February 17, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from a decision of the New

Jersey State Parole Board.

Timothy Mennig, appellant pro se.

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

Timothy Mennig, an inmate at Riverfront State Prison, appeals from a June 22, 2005 decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board denying his parole and establishing a sixteen-month future eligibility term (FET). Mennig presents the following arguments on appeal:

POINT I

THE FAILURE OF AGENTS OF THE PAROLE BOARD TO OBSERVE AND PRACTICE PRIMARY STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES LEADING UP TO APPELLANT'S PAROLE HEARING ENSURED AN UNFAIR AND PREJUDICIAL DETERMINATION SHALL FOLLOW.

POINT II

ALLOWING DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT DURING THE PAROLE HEARING FROM INDIVIDUALS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND DENY SUCH CONDUCT OCCURRED, PROMOTES A "KANGAROO-COURT" ATMOSPHERE, AND IS AN AFFRONT TO THE ENTIRE PAROLE PROCESS.

POINT III

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MADE BY BOARD MEMBERS DURING THE PAROLE HEARING STRONGLY SUGGEST APPELLANT WAS NOT AFFORDED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING.

POINT IV

EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE IN HIS OWN REHABILITATION OR THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION HE WILL VIOLATE THE CONDITIONS OF HIS PAROLE.

POINT V

THE FULL BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF LACK OF INSIGHT INTO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND MINIMIZING CONDUCT AND INSUFFICIENT PROGRAM RESOLUTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS, AND IS NOTHING MORE THEN A BOILER PLATE DETERMINATION.

POINT VI

IN ITS INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THE TWO-MEMBER PANEL'S DECISION TO DENY PAROLE THE FULL BOARD CHOSE TO IGNORE CRUCIAL FACTS OF PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY NATURE. THIS DECISION IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

We have carefully reviewed these contentions in light of the record, including the Confidential Appendix, and the applicable law. We find Mennig's arguments to be entirely unpersuasive and without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D)(E); see Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001) (Trantino VI); Beckworth v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359, 368 (1973); Puchalski v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 104 N.J. Super. 294, 300 (App. Div. 1969).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6007-04T3

February 17, 2006