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 appellant 

(Kaufman Dolowich LLP, attorneys; Timothy Mark

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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 parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. 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) revoking his parole and imposing 

a thirteen-month term of incarceration before he would 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 purpose. He was separately 

charged for various drug-related offenses, including distributing cocaine. In 

2012, Walker pled guilty to an amended charge of first-degree aggravated 

assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a); second-degree unlawful 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 years 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 with various parole 

conditions. The conditions included that he: reside in an approved location; 

obtain permission from his parole officer to change his residence; obtain 
3 A-2635-22

permission from his parole officer to leave New Jersey; refrain from purchasing 

or using alcohol; and participate in and complete a substance abuse program. 

 During his first four months of parole, Walker violated numerous 

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 visited a dying relative and then attended her funeral. Walker stayed 

there approximately ten days before returning to New Jersey. 

Upon his return, Walker was charged with violating his parole conditions. 

He was assigned counsel, and a revocation hearing took place. The hearing 

officer found Walker had repeatedly and persistently violated his parole 

conditions. The hearing officer's initial decision recommended Walker's parole 

be revoked, and he serve thirteen months without parole eligibility. 

 Walker administratively appealed. In the Board's final administrative 

decision (FAD), it found that Walker's parole violations had been established 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 and alcohol counseling and 

leaving the state without permission. Characterizing the violations as "serious 
4 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 deferentially "in light of its 

expertise in the specialized area of parole supervision." 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. 2005) (omission in original) 

(quoting Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. (Trantino 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. State 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 been 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 Trantino IV, 154 N.J. at 24). 

Specifically, we must consider: (1) whether the Board's action is consistent with 
5 A-2635-22

the applicable law; (2) whether there is substantial 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 conclusion that could not have been 

reasonably reached based on the relevant facts. Ibid. Credibility determinations 

by those who see and hear witnesses are afforded substantial 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, 587-88 (1988). 

On appeal, Walker contends that his admitted violations were not serious 

and persistent, urging us to reject the Board's findings on that question. He 

essentially urges us to "retry" the matter with the same evidence the parties 

presented to the Board, and then reach a different result. from his parole officer 

and the director of his substance abuse program. This argument misinterprets 

our standard of review, which does not call for such an approach. 

The record contains ample evidence to support the Board's findings. The 

evidence includes Walker's own admissions, as well as uncontroverted 

testimony. We cannot conclude that the Board's final decision "went so far wide 

of the mark that a mistake must have been made," hence we decline to disturb 

it. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. at 547. 

Affirmed.