Cowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.
| Docket Number | A-1131-20 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Parties | HORACE COWAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Submitted December 12, 2023
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Horace Cowan, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General on the brief).
Before Judges Whipple and Enright.
Horace Cowan, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals from the November 18, 2020 final agency decision (FAD) denying him parole and imposing a 200-month future eligibility term (FET).
On February 18, 1990, Cowan shot an individual and fled the scene. He was arrested and charged with murder, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, possession of a sawed-off shotgun and hindering apprehension or prosecution. In 1991 while awaiting trial at Monmouth County Jail for the 1990 shooting, Cowan, assisted by two other inmates, hit a corrections officer, tied him up and proceeded to escape the jail through a window.
For the 1990 shooting, Cowan was convicted of aggravated manslaughter, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. He was sentenced to an aggregate life term, with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years.
As to the county jail incident, Cowan pled guilty to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, criminal restraint, and escape. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of ten years with a mandatory minimum of five years, consecutive to the manslaughter sentence. In total, Cowan is serving a custodial sentence of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of thirty years for aggravated manslaughter, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, criminal restraint, and escape.
During his incarceration, Cowan has committed twenty-one institutional disciplinary infractions and lost 725 days of commutation credits due to his infractions. His last disciplinary infraction occurred on August 22, 2018, for refusing to accept a work/housing assignment.
On February 19, 2020, Cowan became eligible for parole. The Parole Board (Board) held an initial hearing on November 8, 2019, and referred the matter to a Board panel. On January 2, 2020, the Two Member panel denied parole due to: facts and circumstances of the offense; his extensive prior offense and incarceration record; his offenses during probation; the lack of deterrence of criminal behavior by prior incarcerations; his institutional disciplinary infraction; lack of proper problem resolution; and lastly, his risk of recidivism.
The Two Member Board Panel found the following mitigating factors: opportunities on community supervision committed without violation; participation in programs specific to behavior; favorable institutional adjustment; and attempt to enroll and participate in programs.
The Two Member panel's January 2, 2020 determination to deny parole was then referred to a Three Member Board Panel for the establishment of an FET. On May 6, 2020, the Three Member panel established a 200-month FET. The panel explained its reasoning in a ten-page decision, relying on much of the same factors discussed and found by the Two Member panel. Cowan appealed to the full Board.
The full Board issued its FAD on November 18, 2020, affirming the 200-month FET and denial of parole, finding no merit to Cowan's challenges. This appeal followed.
Our review of final decisions of the Board is limited. Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J.Super 87, 93 (App. Div. 2018). The Board's decisions, like those of other administrative agencies, will not be reversed unless they are "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or [are] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). This limited review of parole determinations accords agency action a presumption of validity and reasonableness. In re Vey, 272 N.J.Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993). The burden is on the challenging party to...
To continue reading
Request your trial