Puchalski v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1969 |
| Citation | 259 A.2d 713,55 N.J. 113 |
| Parties | Anthony PUCHALSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Henry A. Hill, Jr., Princeton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant-respondent (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).
The plaintiff, an indigent prisoner, brought this action to review the denial of assignment of counsel to represent him in connection with a parole release consideration hearing.
The Parole Board may release a prisoner on parole only if '(it) is of the opinion that there is reasonable probability that, if such prisoner is released, he will assume his proper and rightful place in society, without violation of the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.' N.J.S.A. 30:4--123.14. In connection with his appearance at the Board hearing to determine such fitness (N.J.S.A. 30:4--123.19), 'the prisoner shall have the right to consult legal counsel of his own selection, if he feels that his legal rights are invaded, and subject to the consent of the board to submit in writing a brief or other legal argument on his behalf * * *.' N.J.S.A. 30:4--123.25. Being financially unable to hire counsel for this purpose, plaintiff contends that the refusal to assign him an attorney violates equal protection and due process.
The Appellate Division upheld the denial, finding that the aid of counsel in seeking a parole is not of such importance and does not concern the determination of such factual or legal questions as to require the state to supply an attorney to those unable to pay for one, and that consequently no constitutional right of plaintiff had been infringed. 104 N.J.Super. 294, 250 A.2d 19 (1969). His appeal to this Court is on the basis that a substantial constitutional question is involved. R. 2:2--1(a)(1).
We agree with the Appellate Division and affirm for the reasons given in its opinion. Mastriana v. New Jersey Parole Board, 95 N.J.Super. 351, 231 A.2d 236 (App.Div.1967), where it appears that court-assigned counsel advised the appellant prisoner at a consent rehearing before the Board, is not authority to the contrary in view of the peculiar situation present in that case. Nor does R. 2:7--2(a), providing for the assignment of the Public Defender as counsel for an indigent where a review of administrative proceedings concerning status as a prisoner is sought, extend to a parole release consideration hearing before the Board. Its intended scope otherwise need not be considered here.
We should add that we express no view on the intimation by the Appellate Division (104 N.J.Super. at 301, 250...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monks v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
... ... Monks. He did however state that 'as a matter of policy,' the Board does not give reasons, citing New Jersey decisions as holding that it was under no legal obligation to do so. Mastriana v. N.J. Parole Bd., 95 N.J.Super. 351, 231 A.2d 236 (App.Div.1967); Puchalski v. N.J. State Parole Board, 104 N.J.Super. 294, 250 A.2d 19 (App.Div.), aff'd, 55 N.J. 113, 359 A.2d 713 (1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938, 90 S.Ct. 1841, 26 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970); see also Madden v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 438 F.2d 1189 (3 Cir. 1971). Mr. Ashby's letter closed with a ... ...
-
Beckworth v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
... ... 30:4--123.14. Surely we are in no position whatever to say that it should have made such finding or that its denial of parole was in any sense arbitrary or in abuse of its broad discretion. Puchalski v. N.J. State Parole Board, 104 N.J.Super. 294, 300, 250 A.2d 19 (App.Div.), aff'd, 55 N.J. 113, 259 A.2d 713 (1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938, 90 S.Ct. 1841, 26 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970); State v. Lavelle, 54 N.J. 315, 325, 255 A.2d 223 (1969) ... Monks was not intended to and did ... ...
-
O'Neal v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
...there should be a release on parole is broad. Puchalski v. N.J. Parole Bd., 104 N.J.Super. 294, 250 A.2d 19 (App.Div.), aff'd 55 N.J. 113, 259 A.2d 713 (1969), Cert. den. 398 U.S. 938, 90 S.Ct. 1841, 16 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970). Courts must give great weight to the expertise of the Board in deali......
-
Johnson v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
...N.J. 238, 242, 277 A.2d 193 (1974); Puchalski v. N.J. State Parole Board, 104 N.J.Super. 294, 250 A.2d 19 (App.Div.1969), aff'd 55 N.J. 113, 259 A.2d 713 (1969), cert. den. 398 U.S. 938, 90 S.Ct. 1841, 26 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970); In re Senior Appeals Examiners, 60 N.J. 356, 363, 290 A.2d 129 (19......