SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2635- 22 JONATHAN WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Respondent.

_________________________

Argued July 9, 2024

– Decided July 16, 2024 Before Judges Gilson and Smith. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board. Timothy Mark Ortolani argued the cause for appellan t (Kaufman Dolowich LLP, attorneys; Timothy M ark Ortolani, of counsel and on the briefs). Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin , Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 2635

- 22

Parolee, Jonathan Walker, appeals from a March 29, 2023 final agency decision by the State Parole Board (the Board) revo king his parole and imposing a thirteen-month term of incarceration before he wo uld be eligible for parole again. We affirm. In 2010, Walker was charged with murder, unlawful possession of a handgun, and possessing a handgun for an unlawful p urpose. He was separately charged for various drug-related offenses, includin g distributing cocaine. In 2012, Walker pled guilty to an amended charge of fi rst-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a); second-degree unlawfu l possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and third-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute within a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. That same year, he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of thirteen y ears with periods of parole ineligibility and parole supervision as prescribed by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. In February 2022, Walker was released from prison on parole. Upon his release, Walker was advised that he had to comply w ith various parole conditions. The conditions included that he : reside in an approved location; obtain permission from his parole officer to change his residence; obtain3 A- 2635

- 22

permission from his parole officer to leave New Jersey; ref rain from purchasing or using alcohol; and participate in and complete a substance abuse program. During his first four months of parole, Walker violated numer ous conditions. Specifically, he violated the residency requirements, used drugs and alcohol, and traveled outside of New Jersey without permission from his parole officer. The last charge involved a May 2022 trip that Walker took to Tennessee , where he visit ed a dying relative and then attended her funeral

. Walker stayed there approximately ten days before returning to Ne w Jersey. Upon his return, Walker was charged with violating his parole conditions

. He was assigned counsel, and a revocation hearing t ook place. The hearing officer found Walker had repeatedly and persistentl y violated his parole conditions. The hearing officer's initial decision recommended Walker's parole be revoked, and he serve thirteen months without pa role eligibility. Walker administratively appealed. In the Board's final administrative decision (FAD), it found that Walker's parole violations had been esta blished by clear and convincing evidence

. The Board noted that Walker, within four months of his release, had committed several parole violations, including but not limited to repeatedly failing to attend drug an d alcohol counseling and leaving the state without permission. Characterizing the violations as "serious4 A- 2635

- 22

and persistent," the Board revoked Walker's parole status and imposed the thirteen-month term. On appeal, Walker contends that the Board's FAD was arbitrary and capricious. We review a Parole Board's determination deferentia lly "in light of its expertise in the specialized area of parole supervi sion." J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204, 230 (2017) (citing McGowan v. N. J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)). We will not reverse the Board's decision "unless found to be arbitrary . . . or an abuse of discretion." Pazden v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 374 N.J. Super. 356, 366 (App. Div. 200 5) (omission in original) (quoting Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantin o IV), 154 N.J. 19, 25 (1998)). Unless the Board "went so far wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made," its decision must not be disturbed. N.J. St ate Parole Bd. v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988). In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we are obligated to "determine whether [the Board's] factual finding could have be en reached on sufficient credible evidence in the whole record." Trantino v . N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino VI), 166 N.J. 113, 172 (2001) (quoting Tr antino IV, 154 N.J. at 24). Specifically, we must consider: (1) whether the Boa rd's action is consistent with5 A- 2635

- 22

the applicable law; (2) whether there is substantia l credible evidence in the record as a whole to support its findings; and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the Board erroneously reached a conclusi on that could not have been reasonably reached based on the relevant facts. Ib id. Credibility determinations by those who see and hear witnesses are afforded su bstantial deference. State, Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. T.G. , 414 N.J. Super. 423, 433 (App. Div. 2010); Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587-8 8 (1988). On appeal, Walker contends that his admitted violat ions were not serious and persistent, urging us to reject the Board's fin dings on that question. H e essentially urges us to "retry" the matter with the same evidence the parties presented to the Board, and then reach a different r esult. from his parole officer and the director of his substance abuse program. T his argument misinterprets our standard of review, which does not call for suc h an approach. The record contains ample evidence to support the B oard's findings. The evidence includes Walker's own admissions, as well as un controverted testimony. W e cannot conclude that the Board's final decision "we nt so far wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made," he nce we decline to disturb it. Cestari , 224 N.J. Super. at 547. Affirmed.