Title: An Order to Show Cause to Address the Release of Certain Individuals Serving Sentences in State Prisons and Juvenile Facilities

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of
the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by
the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been
summarized.

       An Order to Show Cause to Address the Release of Certain Individuals
            Serving Sentences in State Prisons and Juvenile Facilities
                             (M-1093-19) (084412)

Argued May 27, 2020 -- Decided June 5, 2020

RABNER, C.J., writing for the Court.

        The Court considers issues relating to the impact of the coronavirus on individuals
in state prison and juvenile facilities. The Office of the Public Defender and the
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) applied directly to the Court for
relief relating to the spread of the virus in both settings. They essentially asked the
Judiciary to order a framework for the early release of several groups. Under the
proposed framework, judges or court-appointed special masters would decide whether to
grant release or a furlough in individual cases.

       Two days after the Public Defender and ACLU wrote to the Court, the Governor
issued Executive Order 124. The Order created a mechanism to identify inmates in state
prison to be considered for parole or a medical furlough. It provides two tracks for
review, directing the Parole Board to expedite its consideration of inmates for parole and
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to decide whether to grant a
medical furlough -- an “emergency medical temporary home confinement.” As of May
26, 2020, 607 inmates had been approved for home confinement or parole, and 337 had
been released. By June 1, 2020, an additional 70 had been released.

       Consistent with existing law, the Parole Board provided inmates with an
individualized statement of reasons for cases in which it denied parole. Inmates denied a
medical furlough received a two-sentence form letter from the Commissioner that
notified them of the outcome but did not set forth any reasons. Inmates denied parole
have an avenue for appeal; inmates denied a medical furlough under the Executive Order
do not.

       The decision whether to grant parole or to furlough an inmate rests largely with
the Executive Branch. Although a court rule authorizes judges to amend a sentence and
release an individual defendant because of illness or infirmity, R. 3:21-10(b)(2), neither
the rule nor the other sources raised provide authority for the courts to establish and
                                             1
oversee a broad-based program to release or furlough inmates in state prison. The Court
therefore respectfully declines to grant the relief requested by the Public Defender and
the ACLU.

       As to the two tracks the Executive Order created to consider inmates for release,
the Parole Board has been considering inmates in a manner consistent with existing
practices. That includes various due process protections that attach to the parole process.
Through a different process, the Commissioner, with help from the Review Committee,
has been addressing medical furloughs.

HELD: Executive Order 124 creates a sufficient expectation of eligibility for release
through a furlough program to call for certain due process protections. The Court adds to
the Executive Order the protections summarized on pages 6 to 7 and detailed on pages 33
to 36 of the opinion to comport with due process. The Court also notes that inmates may
challenge the DOC’s action, a final agency decision, by seeking review before the
Appellate Division. The agency’s decision is entitled to deference on appeal. Individual
inmates may also seek relief independently under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). They do not have
to exhaust the remedies available under the Executive Order before they may file a
motion in court. As to sentences imposed on juveniles who are in the custody of the
Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), those individuals may seek relief from the court on
an individual basis. To the extent the opinion calls for trial judges to rule on motions and
the Appellate Division to review agency decisions, the Court exercises its supervisory
authority to require that applications be heard and decided in a matter of days and urges
the Commissioner and the Parole Board to act as expeditiously as possible.

        Section I of the Court’s opinion discusses the requested Order to Show Cause,
which was proposed by the Public Defender and the ACLU. (pp. 8-10) The opinion next
discusses Executive Order 124. (pp. 10-14) One month after the Order was issued, the
Commissioner approved an Internal Management Procedure (IMP) to implement the
Order. The Court reviews the IMP, notes measures DOC has adopted in correctional
facilities to protect inmates and staff from COVID-19, and cites results from the
Executive Order as reported by the Attorney General. (pp. 14-17)

       Section II of the opinion considers the relief the Public Defender and ACLU seek
relating to state prison inmates. The Court notes that the Executive Branch, and not the
Judiciary, has primary control over the custody and care of adult inmates, the parole
process, and inmate furloughs. (p. 18) The Court considers the sources that the Public
Defender and ACLU have identified as conferring authority for the courts to act and finds
no basis for a broad-based judicial furlough process in either State v. Boone,  262 N.J.
Super. 220 (Law Div. 1992), or in Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). (pp. 19-21) Although the Court
finds no source of authority for the Judiciary to direct a broader furlough program in the
Rule, however, the Court notes that the Rule empowers individual inmates to apply for
release from jail based on their physical condition. (p. 21) The Court agrees with the
                                             2
Public Defender, ACLU, and Attorney General that inmates are not required to exhaust
the administrative process under Executive Order 124 before they can apply for relief
under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). (pp. 21-22) The Court finds that Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) gives all
inmates an opportunity to seek direct relief in court and requires an expedited briefing
schedule for such motions, a return date within five days of filing, and a decision within
the next three days. (p. 23) The Court declines to grant the relief requested and notes no Eighth Amendment challenge was raised. (pp. 23-24)

        Section III of the Court’s opinion considers the Attorney General’s argument that
“furlough review is an administrative classification process” and is therefore not subject
to due process, like a decision to transfer an inmate from one prison to another. (pp. 24-
25) The Court disagrees and instead looks for guidance from the body of law relating to
parole. (p. 26) Reviewing relevant case law, the Court explains that, although inmates
have no constitutional right to parole, eligibility for parole under state law can create a
protectible liberty interest if a state statute creates a legitimate or sufficient expectation of
eligibility for parole. (pp. 26-28) In State Parole Board v. Byrne,  93 N.J. 192, 203
(1983), the Court held that New Jersey’s Parole Act creates a sufficient expectancy of
parole eligibility to entitle prisoners to some measure of constitutional protection with
respect to parole eligibility decisions. (pp. 28-29) The Court examines the language of
Executive Order 124 and finds that it creates a liberty interest in the furlough decision for
the inmates it covers and that those inmates are therefore entitled to some measure of
constitutional protection. (pp. 29-31)

       Section IV of the opinion addresses what process is due under the circumstances.
After performing the balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge,