Date: 07-28-2016

Case Style: QUIANDEL ANDERSON VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

Case Number: A-1304-14T3

Judge: George S. Leone

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Robert Lougy Acting Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Caryn M. Rubinstein

Description: Anderson was found guilty of three counts of carjacking,
two counts of conspiracy, and three weapons offenses. On
February 2, 2007, he was sentenced to an eight-year prison term
and five years of mandatory parole supervision upon release
pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On May 13, 2013, Anderson was released on mandatory parole
supervision. While on parole, Anderson was required to abide by
special conditions, including: "be evaluated by a mental health
program designated by the District Parole Office and, upon
completion of the evaluation . . . . comply with the recommended
course of counseling/therapy" and "enroll and participate in an
appropriate substance abuse counseling program until the
District Parole Office approves discharge from this condition."
After his release, Anderson failed to comply with these
conditions. He also violated other conditions of his parole by
having contact with gang members and changing his residence
without approvals. On August 21, 2013, he was placed in a
Residential Community Release Program (RCRP) designed to
transition offenders into the community. During intake,
Anderson admitted to using both codeine cough syrup without a
A-1304-14T3 3
prescription and synthetic cannabis, both of which also violated
the conditions of his parole.
On November 5, 2013, Anderson tested positive for synthetic
cannabis use, but he denied using it. On November 18, 2013,
Anderson was released from the RCRP for his alleged drug use.
On January 3, 2014, Anderson's parole officer (PO) reminded
him about the special conditions of his parole that required him
to get a mental health evaluation and outpatient drug
counseling, because he had not yet obtained either. Anderson's
PO referred him to the Jersey City Community Resource Center
(CRC), a program which provides employment and substance abuse
counseling services to offenders reentering the community.
On January 7, 2014, the Board added completion of the CRC
program to the list of special parole conditions. Anderson
attended nine days at the CRC but missed thirty-four days,
resulting in his discharge from the program.
On February 23, 2014, Anderson was served with a notice of
a parole revocation hearing, alleging he violated the following
special conditions: (1) failure to successfully complete the CRC
program; (2) failure to participate in an appropriate substance
abuse counseling program; and (3) failure to participate in a
mental health evaluation and, upon completion of the evaluation,
comply with the recommended course of counseling/therapy.
A-1304-14T3 4
At his final parole revocation hearing on April 8, 2014,
the hearing officer found by clear and convincing evidence that
Anderson violated the three conditions of his parole, and
recommended a twelve-month FET. On April 30, 2014, a two-member
Panel affirmed the recommendation. On September 24, 2014, the
full Board affirmed. Anderson appeals, arguing:
POINT I - THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPELLANTS' RELEASE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS OR PERSISTENCE REQUIRED TO REVOKE HIS PAROLE UNDER N.J.A.C. 10A:71.7.
POINT II - THE PAROLE BOARD FAILED TO DOCUMENT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT SERIOUSLY OR PERSISTENTLY VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF HIS PAROLE.
II.
Our "limited scope of review" of decisions by the Board is
"grounded in strong public policy concerns and practical
realities." Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113,
200, modified, 167 N.J. 619 (2001). "[T]he Parole Board makes
'highly predictive and individualized discretionary
appraisals.'" Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222
(2016) (quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348,
359 (1973)). We may overturn decisions of the Board only if
"they are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not
'supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a
whole.'" Trantino, supra, 166 N.J. at 191-92 (emphasis and
A-1304-14T3 5
citation omitted); see also Acoli, supra, 224 N.J. at 222-23.
We must hew to that standard of review.
III.
Anderson asserts that his alleged violations do not rise to
the level of seriousness or persistence required to revoke
parole. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b), "[a]ny parolee who
has seriously or persistently violated the conditions of his
parole, may have his parole revoked and may be returned to
custody[.]" Moreover, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.12(c) provides in part:
If the parolee has not been convicted of a crime committed while on parole . . . the purpose of the revocation hearing shall be to determine:
1. Whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the parolee has seriously or persistently violated the conditions of parole; and
2. Whether revocation of parole is desirable.
"The Legislature [has] not further define[d] the type of
conduct it intended to capture within the statutory standard –
'seriously or persistently violated.' And the Board has not
adopted a regulation to guide exercise of its expertise to
distinguish cases in which parole should and should not be
revoked." Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 435 N.J. Super. 377,
382 (App. Div. 2014). Thus, the determination of whether a
parolee's violations are serious or persistent, and whether
A-1304-14T3 6
revocation of parole is desirable, necessarily involves
"individualized discretionary appraisals." Acoli, supra, 224
N.J. at 222.
Here, the evidence before the Board established that
Anderson's violations of the special conditions of his parole
were serious and persistent.
Anderson admitted that he failed to complete the CRC
program. Nonetheless, he argues that the location in Jersey
City was too far away from his residence, that his absence was
because his work schedule conflicted with the program, and that
working and finding work took priority over attending the CRC.
However, these arguments are inconsistent with the record.
First, on January 7, 2014, Anderson told his PO that he would be
able to report to the CRC in Jersey City even though he would be
traveling from East Orange. Although the record is devoid of
information relating to why Anderson was placed in the Jersey
City CRC as opposed to a location closer to his residence, it
also lacks any complaints or communications at all by Anderson
to his PO regarding the hardship based on the commute. Second,
Anderson's CRC program had been specially modified to
accommodate Anderson's work schedule, but Anderson still failed
to attend. Anderson failed to provide verification of a work
conflict to his PO, despite being asked for verification on
A-1304-14T3 7
several occasions between November 18, 2013 and January 3, 2014.
Further, Anderson provided verification of working only thirty
three hours in February 2014. Anderson failed to provide
verification of working on all thirty-four days that he missed.
Third, working did not take priority over attending the CRC
absent an official waiver of attendance.
Anderson admitted he failed to attend the required
substance counseling program. Further, Anderson tested positive
for illicit substances on August 21, 2013, and November 5, 2013.1
On November 18, 2013, Anderson was referred to outpatient drug
counseling and to a location to obtain his mental health
evaluation. Anderson failed to comply with either condition.
Indeed, Anderson was given the opportunity to cure his
violations on January 3, 2014, when his PO reminded him to
comply with both conditions, sent Anderson to the CRC to have
the outpatient counseling completed there, and referred him to
multiple locations where he could have the mental health
evaluation completed. Despite these opportunities, Anderson
still failed to procure both the outpatient counseling and the
mental health evaluation.
1 Anderson's illicit substance use was not among the reasons listed as cause for his parole revocation, but it is relevant to the inquiry of whether Anderson's violation of the outpatient substance counseling condition was serious and persistent.
A-1304-14T3 8
Anderson does not dispute that he failed to have a mental
health evaluation completed. He claims he went to East Orange
General Hospital to undergo the evaluation on January 6, 2014,
but he was unable to have the evaluation performed because he
lacked the necessary paperwork. However, Anderson's PO provided
Anderson with the paperwork to give to the doctor on two
separate occasions. Thus, it was Anderson's own failure to
bring the paperwork that kept him undergoing the evaluation.
Anderson argues that the violations were not serious or
persistent because he made a good faith attempt to comply with
the conditions of his parole. However, for many months he
failed to get a mental health evaluation or enroll in a
substance abuse counseling program, and he failed to attend 79%
of his CRC sessions.

Outcome:

Based on Anderson's serious violations of the special conditions of his parole, the Board concurred with the findings
of the hearing officer and Board panel that revocation was
desirable. The Board's decision to revoke parole was not
"arbitrary" or "capricious." Trantino, supra, 166 N.J. at 191.
Rather, the evidence of Anderson's violations supports the
Board's findings. Moreover, we "give great weight to the
expertise of the Board in dealing with parole decisions." Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board's revocation of Anderson's parole or the
imposition of a twelve-month FET.

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

View Case