IRVIN HAYES v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

IRVIN HAYES,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

_____________________________________________________

May 31, 2016

Submitted May 24, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Currier.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Irvin Hayes, appellant pro se.

Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On July 28, 2011, appellant Irvin Hayes began serving a six-year prison term that was governed by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, which required his service of eighty-five percent of the prison term. In light of the considerable amount of jail time appellant accrued prior to sentencing, he became eligible for parole for the first time in June 2012.

The matter was referred to a two-member panel, which denied parole and imposed a twenty-three-month future eligibility term (FET) because of, among other things: appellant's prior criminal record; his incarceration on a multi-crime conviction; prior failed parole opportunities; appellant's lack of insight into his criminal behavior; and his failure to sufficiently address a substance abuse problem.

After the full Board affirmed the panel's decision, appellant filed this appeal, arguing

I. THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD FAILED TO DOCUMENT A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISION.

II. THE NJSPB FAILED TO CONSIDER JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THEREBY DENYING THE APPELLANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.

III. THE NJSPB FAILED TO CONSIDER SENDING THE APPELLANT TO A SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM.

IV. THE NJSPB FAILED TO ADHERE TO N.J.A.C. 10A:71.4.2 REGARDING "TIMELINESS" IN RES-PONSE TO APPEALS.

In recognizing the Parole Board's decisions are "individualized discretionary appraisals" entitled to appellate deference unless arbitrary, Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 173 (2001), we find no cause to second-guess the Board's application of its expertise and experience in denying parole, Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 226-27 (2016), and we find insufficient merit in all appellant's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.