Matos v. N.J. State Parole Bd.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-2179-17T2 |
| Parties | TARSIS MATOS, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
Before Judges Suter and Geiger.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Tarsis Matos, appellant, pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Appellant Tarsis Matos appeals from a November 22, 2017 final agency decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying him parole and establishing a 120-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
Matos is incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, serving a life sentence subject to a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility for murder, kidnapping, and multiple counts of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. On March 7, 1987, Matos shot and killed an acquaintance in an apartment in Newark. He then pointed a gun at another occupant and forced him to leave the apartment. Matos held the second victim at gunpoint for two hours before releasing him in a different section of Newark. Matos fled to Florida and was arrested on May 26, 1987. Matos was charged, indicted, and convicted by a jury of all counts.
These were not Matos's first offenses. In March 1983, Matos was sentenced in New York to an indeterminate term of one to three years for criminal possession of a weapon. He was paroled in May 1984 and absconded. On July 28, 1985, Matos shot and killed a person at a dance club in New York City while a fugitive. Matos was convicted of murder and weapons offenses and sentenced on those offenses to a term of twenty-five years to life, subject to a twenty-five-year minimum, to run consecutively to his New Jersey sentence.
Matos has committed six institutional infractions while serving his prison term in New Jersey, including four infractions for indecent exposure (prohibited act .053, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(3)(v)). His most recent infraction for indecent exposure was committed in 2016.
Matos first became eligible for parole on May 24, 2017. A parole hearing officer referred the case to a Board panel for a hearing. The two-member Board panel denied parole on April 7, 2017, determining there was a substantial likelihood Matos would commit a new crime if released on parole at this time. The Board panel expressed the following reasons for denying parole: nature and circumstances of the offenses (murder, kidnapping, possession of a weapon, aggravated assault); prior offense record is extensive; offense record is repetitive; nature of criminal record increasingly more serious; committed to incarceration for multiple offenses; prior opportunities on parole revoked due to commission of new offenses; prior opportunity on parole and prior incarceration failed to deter criminal behavior; numerous, persistent institutional infractions resulting in loss of commutation time and confinement in detention and administrative segregation, with last infraction on January 16, 2017; insufficient problem resolution due to lack of insight into criminal behavior and substance abuse problem not having been sufficiently addressed (alcohol); inmate has notsignificantly addressed his decision-making skills; inmate's aggressive and at times violent behavior along with handgun possession; inmate continues to violate institutional rules and regulations; inmate has little to no remorse for the victims; this is inmate's second murder in two years; and inmate has four weapons convictions and was on parole in New York at the time of the instant offenses.
The Board panel found the following mitigating factors: participation in programs specific to behavior; participation in institutional programs; institutional reports reflect favorable institutional adjustment; attempt made to enroll in programs but was not admitted due to wait list; and risk assessment evaluation.
The two-member Board panel referred the case to a three-member panel for establishment of a FET that may be in excess of the Board's presumptive schedule. On June 7, 2017, a three-member Board panel established a 120-month FET based on the same reasons expressed by the two-member panel in denying parole.1 The three-member Board panel also considered the samemitigating factors as the two-member Board panel, and a letter of mitigation submitted by Matos.2 The three-member Board panel determined "that the factors supporting the denial of parole, collectively, are of such a serious nature as to warrant the setting of a [FET] which differs from the presumptive term of [twenty-seven] months (+/- [nine] months)." Based on its "comprehensive review of the entire record," the three-member Board panel found it "clear" that Matos "remain[s] a substantial threat to public safety." The panel also found that after thirty years of incarceration, Matos:
The three-member Board panel also found establishing an FET less than 120 months "would be wholly inconsistent with the conclusion that [Matos has] not shown the requisite amount of rehabilitative progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal activity."
Matos appealed the panels' decisions to the full Board, arguing: (1) the Board panel failed to consider material facts; (2) the Board panel failed to document that a preponderance of the evidence indicates a substantial likelihood that the inmate will commit a crime if released on parole; (3) Matos should have been provided an interpreter in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.13(f); (4) the Board panel established an FET prior to a notice of decision being issued on the administrative appeal; (5) the denial of parole was contrary to the evidence in the record and an abuse of discretion; and (6) the 120-month FET is excessive and unjustly punitive.
The full Board affirmed, finding no merit in Matos's challenges to the denial of parole and the length of the FET. The Board found the Board panel "considered the aggregate of information pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11 and fully documented its decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.18(f)." The Boardconcurred with the findings reached by the two-member and three-member Board panels, rejecting his claim "the Board panel demonstrated personal interest, prejudice or bias." This appeal followed.
Matos raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the Board panel denied appellant's right to procedural due process by violating written Board policy; (2) the denial of parole was arbitrary and capricious because the reasons stated for the denial were inadequate and the denial was not supported by credible evidence in the record; (3) the Board panel utilized erroneous material facts to deny parole; (4) the three-member Board Panel failed to consider appellant's participation in rehabilitation; (5) the usage of psychological concepts such as lack of insight, remorse, and empathy as a substantial basis for denying parole was an abuse of discretion due to the vagueness of these undefined concepts and their highly subjective nature; and (6) the 120-month FET is excessive and unreasonable.
Our review of the Board's decision is deferential. J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204, 230 (2017). That is so because "Parole Board decisions are highly 'individualized discretionary appraisals,'" Trantino v....
To continue reading
Request your trial