SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3907-21 

NEW JERSEY STATE 

PAROLE BOARD, 

 Respondent, 

v.

JOSHUA BURTON, 

 Appellant. 

________________________

Submitted May 7, 2024 – Decided May 14, 2024 

Before Judges Puglisi and Haas. 

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board. 

Fernandez Garcia, LLC, attorneys for appellant 

(Michael Garcia, of counsel and on the brief). 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy 

Attorney General, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3907-21

 Appellant Joshua Burton appeals from the June 29, 2022 State Parole 

Board (Board) final agency decision revoking his parole and establishing a 

fourteen-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm. 

 On September 14, 2012, Burton attempted to sexually assault two women 

in separate attacks in a public library. He followed one of the women into a 

bathroom before attacking her. Burton ripped the woman's shirt, pulled down 

her pants, and attempted to anally penetrate her. Burton fled the bathroom after 

another woman entered and began yelling at him to stop the attack. 

 That same day, Burton accosted another woman in a library stairway. 

Burton grabbed the woman's breast, threatened to kill her, and began to pull her 

up the stairs. The woman was able to break free. Someone called 9-1-1 and the 

police arrested Burton near the library. 

 In June 2013, Burton pled guilty to one count of second-degree sexual 

assault and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. The trial court 

sentenced Burton to an aggregate five-year term in prison and Parole 

Supervision for Life (PSL). 

 As part of his PSL, Burton was subject to a number of conditions upon his 

release from prison, including conditions that required him to: reside at a 

residence approved by his parole officer; obtain permission from his parole 
3 A-3907-21

officer prior to any change in residence; participate in and successfully complete 

an appropriate community counseling or treatment program as directed by his 

parole officer; successfully complete the Electronic Monitoring Program 

(EMP); and participate in and successfully complete the Community Resource 

Center (CRC) program. 

 On January 28, 2021, Burton was discharged from his outpatient drug 

treatment program after he was observed masturbating during a Zoom 

counseling session. On March 5, 2021, Burton's CRC program discharged him 

due to his repeated noncompliance with program rules. While on EMP, Burton 

violated his curfew and failed to successfully complete the program's 

requirements. Burton was placed in a residential program, which he completed 

on June 10, 2021. 

 The next day, Burton's parole officer referred him to the Restoration 

Shelter (Shelter) in Newark. The Shelter terminated him from the program on 

June 17, 2021, after he was seen entering the woman's bathroom and remaining 

there, which echoed what he had done in his original offense. After his 

discharge, Burton's whereabouts were unknown for three days and he failed to 

obtain permission from his parole officer prior to changing his address. 
4 A-3907-21

 Burton was thereafter served with a Notice of Probable Cause Hearing, 

which advised him of the parole conditions he had violated and his rights at the 

hearing. Burton elected to waive the probable cause hearing and the matter 

proceeded as a final parole revocation hearing. 

 During the revocation hearing, the hearing officer heard testimony from 

Parole Officer Barragan, Lorena Inestroza, and Shawn Favors. Barragan 

provided a summary of Burton's parole supervision history, including details 

and documents related to each violation Burton committed. Inestroza, who was 

a counselor at the Shelter, testified regarding the June 17, 2021 incident in the 

women's bathroom. Favors, who was a counselor at the CRC program, testified 

regarding the January 28, 2021 incident where Burton was observed 

masturbating during a Zoom counseling session.1

 At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer found by clear and 

convincing evidence that Burton violated the conditions of PSL, and 

recommended that Burton's parole be revoked with the imposition of a fourteenmonth FET. On January 19, 2022, a two-member Board Panel reviewed the 

1

 Favors was not present during the Zoom call, but reviewed a video provided 

by a person who was present and confirmed that Burton was the man seen in the 

video. 
5 A-3907-21

record and concurred with the hearing officer's determination. The panel 

revoked Burton's parole and imposed a fourteen-month FET. 

 Burton filed an administrative appeal of this decision and, on June 29, 

2022, the full Board affirmed the panel's determination. This appeal followed. 

 On appeal, Burton argues the Board's decision was not supported by clear 

and convincing evidence and that the hearing officer inappropriately allowed 

hearsay evidence into the record. We have considered these contentions in light 

of the record and the applicable legal principles and conclude they are without 

sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). We add the following comments. 

"Parole Board decisions are highly 'individualized discretionary 

appraisals.'" Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. ("Trantino VI"), 166 N.J. 113, 

173 (2001) (quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359 

(1973)). As such, we give great deference to the Board's "expertise in the 

specialized area of parole supervision." J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 

204, 230 (2017). 

In reviewing a final decision of the Board, this court considers: (1) 

whether the Board's action is consistent with the applicable law; (2) whether 

there is substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole to support its 
6 A-3907-21

findings; and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the Board erroneously 

reached a conclusion that could not have been reasonably made based on the 

relevant facts. Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. ("Trantino IV"), 154 N.J. 19, 

24 (1998). Consequently, where the Board has applied the correct legal 

standard, our role is limited to determining whether the decision was arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 

544, 563 (App. Div. 2002). "The burden of showing that an action was arbitrary, 

unreasonable or capricious rests upon the appellant." Ibid. 

Applying these principles, we are satisfied that the Board's revocation of 

Burton's parole and the imposition of a fourteen-month FET was supported by 

sufficient credible evidence in the record and was neither arbitrary, capricious, 

or unreasonable. Contrary to Burton's contentions on appeal, there was ample 

non-hearsay evidence in the record to support the Board's findings and 

conclusions. This evidence included the video of the Zoom counseling session; 

the discharge documents from the programs Burton undeniably failed to 

complete; Inestroza's testimony about the incident in the Shelter bathroom, and 
7 A-3907-21

Barragan's testimony about Burton's failure to keep him apprised of his 

whereabouts.2

 Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the Board 

in its June 29, 2022 final decision. 

 Affirmed. 

2

 Burton also complains that Favors was permitted to testify even though he was 

not on the Board's original witness list. However, the hearing officer offered to 

adjourn the hearing to allow Burton's counsel additional preparation time if 

needed, and Burton's counsel declined the offer. Therefore, the Board correctly 

rejected Burton's contention on this point.