KOFIRIES v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0182-16T1


KOFI RIES,

        Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,

     Respondent.
______________________________

              Submitted January 8, 2018 – Decided January 30, 2018

              Before Judges Ostrer and Whipple.

              On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole
              Board.

              Kofi Ries, appellant pro se.

              Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
              attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton
              Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
              counsel; Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney
              General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Kofi Ries, an inmate at South Woods State Prison, appeals the

August 24, 2016 New Jersey State Parole Board (the Board) decision
denying     him   parole    and   imposing    an   eighteen-month     future

eligibility term.

    Ries pled guilty to two counts of third-degree possession of

CDS with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school,


N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; third-degree possession of CDS, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-

10(1)(1); third-degree burglary, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2; second-degree

burglary, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1); and second-degree eluding an

officer, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2.        He was sentenced to an aggregate term

of eleven years and nine months.

    On April 15, 2016, Ries became eligible for parole after

serving four years, three months, and five days.               On March 8,

2016, a two-member Board panel denied him parole and set an

eighteen-month future eligibility term.

    On March 17, 2016, Ries administratively appealed the denial.

On August 24, 2016, a full Board panel affirmed.               This appeal

followed.

    On appeal, Ries argues the Board improperly discriminated

against him by basing its decision to deny him parole on a

substance abuse issue.        He further avers the Board acted in an

arbitrary    fashion   in   denying   him    parole   based   on   undefined

criteria.     Because the Board properly exercised its statutory

discretion, we affirm.



                                      2                              A-0182-16T1
      Ries argues the Board's decision to deny him parole due to a

drug addiction was arbitrary and capricious because the Board did

not   offer      him   adequate,    professional       treatment.       While     Ries

acknowledges the Board relied on other factors in denying him

parole, he contends its most significant reason was that he had

unresolved drug problems.               Ries further contends it was an error

for the Board to deny him parole based on facts from a prior

record.    We disagree.

      We   must        affirm     the     Board's    decision      unless    it    was

unreasonable, unsupported by credible evidence in the record, or

contrary to the law.            Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 
166 N.J.
 113, 172 (2001).             "Board decisions are highly 'individualized

discretionary appraisals.'"              Id. at 173 (quoting Beckworth v. N.J.

State Parole Bd., 
62 N.J. 348, 359 (1973)).                  Thus, the Board has

"broad     but     not       unlimited     discretionary     powers,"       and    its

determinations         are    "judicially       reviewable   for   arbitrariness."

Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 
58 N.J. 238, 242 (1971).                     "Common

sense dictates that [the Board's] prediction as to future conduct

and its opinion as to compatibility with the public welfare be

grounded on due consideration of the aggregate of all the factors

which may have pertinence."              Beckworth, 
62 N.J. at 360.         The Board

must also consider the factors in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b), which



                                            3                                 A-0182-16T1
contains   a   non-exhaustive    list,   in   determining    an   inmate's

eligibility for parole.

     Even if we were to agree the Board erred in denying Ries

parole based on an unresolved substance abuse issue, the Board

denied parole for numerous other reasons amply supported by the

record. The Board denied Ries parole because of the serious nature

of his offenses – he pled guilty to two counts of third-degree

possession of a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to

distribute within 1,000 feet of a school, one count of second-

degree burglary, one count of third-degree burglary, one count of

second-degree eluding an officer, and one count of third-degree

possession of a controlled dangerous substance.             Moreover, the

Board denied him parole based on an extensive criminal record –

Ries has been convicted of twenty offenses as an adult.           The Board

further reasoned Ries's offense were repetitive, increased in

seriousness,    and   he   was   committed     for   multiple     offense.

Furthermore, Ries was denied parole because he had previously been

paroled, but parole did not deter his criminal behavior.              While

on parole on three separate occasions, Ries violated parole each

time.

     Based on our review of the record, the Board's decision to

deny parole is amply supported and is not arbitrary, capricious,

or unreasonable.

                                   4                                A-0182-16T1
    Ries's additional arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E).

    Affirmed.




                               5                           A-0182-16T1