SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 2010
- 14T4 WAYNE COLE, Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent.

______________________________________

Submitted December 21, 2016

– Decided Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board. Wayne Cole, a ppellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Att orney General , of counsel; Christopher C . Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Appellant Wayne Cole, an inmate at Northern Stat e Prison, appeals from the August 27, 2014 final agency decision of the State Parole Board (Board), wh ich affirmed the decision of a three
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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.

May 9, 20172 A - 2010
- 14T4

member Board Panel (Panel) to deny paro le and impose a 168
- month future eligibility term (FET). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Cole was charged in a seventy - count indictment with attempted murder (eleven counts), kidnapping (three counts), aggravated assault (forty
- seven counts), end angering the welfare of a child (two counts), weapon s offenses (four counts), armed burglary (two counts), and criminal mischief (one count). The charges stemmed from Cole holding his paramour and her two young children hostage in a motel room at gunpoint . Cole fir ed at several police officers who responded to the domestic dispute during a lengthy stand
- off that finally ended with Cole surrender ing . Following a jury trial, Cole was convicted of sixt y - three of the seventy counts and , after appropriate mergers, was sentenced on twenty
- four counts to an aggregate term of 123 years' imprisonment with fifty
- two and one
half ye ars of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43
- 7.2. On appeal , we reversed Cole's conviction s and remanded for a new trial. On March 1, 2000, Cole pled guilty to one count of first
- degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13
- 1(a); one count of second
degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24
- 4(a); and five counts of first
- degree attempted murder , N.J.S.A. 2C:5
- 1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11
- 3. O n March 29, 2000, Cole was sentenced to3 A - 2010
- 14T4

an aggregate term of forty years' imprisonment with a twenty
- yea r period of parole ineligibility. Cole became eligible for parole on December 23, 2013. A hearing officer conducted an initial hearing on July 3, 2013, and referred the matter to a P anel. After conducting a n interview and considering documentation in the case file as well as confidential material s and a professional report , o n August 23, 2013 , a two member P anel denied Cole parole . To support the denial , the Panel cited prosecutorial objection; Cole's prior criminal record ; 1 the failure of a prior incarceration to deter his crim inal behavior;
and Cole's commission of numerous, persistent, and serious institutional infractions, which were consistent with his prior criminal record and resulted in the loss of commutation time, confinement in detention and administrative segregation. 2 In addition, the P anel relied on Cole's insufficient problem resolution skills , evidenced by a lack of insight into his criminal behavior, his denial of his crime s , his minimization of his

1 Cole was previously convicted for shoplifting and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. On the drug charge, he received a one - year prison sentence.

2 As of August 23, 2013, Cole had committed thirty
- one institutional infractions, the most rece nt occurring on February 28, 2013. At least eleven infractions were asterisk offenses. Asterisk offenses "are considered the most serious and result in the most severe sanctions [ . ] " N.J.A.C. 10A:4
- 4.1(a).4 A - 2010
- 14T4

conduct, and his failure to sufficiently address a substance abuse problem despite blaming his crimes on alcohol . The P anel also noted that Cole lack ed remorse and has taken " no responsibility for his assaultive behavior [ , ] which has continued in prison[.]" In mitigation, t he P anel considered Cole's participation in institutional programs, his average to above
- average institutional reports, his attempts to enroll and participate in programs , although not admitted, and the restoration of commutation time.
Nonetheless , the P anel denied parole finding "a substantial likelihood" that Cole would commit a new crime if released on parole and referred the matter to a three
- member P anel for the establishment of a FET in excess of the regulatory guidelines.
In a January 14, 2014 written decision , the three
- m ember
P anel affirmed the denial of parole and imposed a 168
- month FET pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.21( d ) . 3 After considering the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11, 4 the Board determined

3 N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.21(d) authorizes a three
- me mber Panel to "establish a future parole eligibility date which differs from that required by the provisions of (a) or (b) and (c) . . . if the future parole eligibility date which would be established pursuant to such subsections is clearly inappropriate due to the inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal behavior."

4 N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11(a ) provides that "[p]arole decisions shall be based on the aggregate of all pertinent factors . . . . " S ubsection (b) provide s that "[t]he hearing officer, Board panel5 A - 2010
- 14T4

" that the factors supporting the denial of parole, collecti vely, [were] of such a serious nature as to warrant the setting of a [FET] which differs from the presumptive term[,]" and any term less than a 168
- month FET "would be wholly inconsistent with the conclusion that, after nineteen . . . years of incarceratio n, [Cole] ha[d] not shown the requisite amount of rehabilitative progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal activity." Cole appealed both the two
- member and the three
- member Panel decisions to the full Board. In a n August 27, 2014 final written decision , the Board affirmed the denial of parole and the imposition of a 168
- month FET term . The Board concurred with the
two - member Panel 's determination that " a preponderance of evidence " indicate d " that there [ was ] a substantial likelihood
tha t [ Cole ] would commit a crime if released on parole at this time. " T he Board also concurred with the determination of the
three
- member Panel to establish a 168
- month FET. In addressing Cole's assertion that the Panels considered an incomplete record , wh ich omitted his participation in several programs, t he Board noted that the Panels amended their respective decisions to include his participation in those programs as a
or Board shall consider [the twenty
- three enumerated factors] and, in addition, may consider any other factors deemed relevant" at a parole hearing.6 A - 2010
- 14T4

mitigating factor . However, the Board also noted the inclusion
of Cole's Risk Assessm ent Evaluation Score of thirty
- seven , which

was indicative of a high risk for recidivism, and pointed out that notwithstanding these amendment s , the Panel decisions remained unchanged.
The Board confirmed that, given Cole's sentence date, the appropriate parole release standard was " whether the preponderance of evidence indicate [ d ] a substantial likelihood that [Cole] would commit a new crime if released on parole " and rejected Cole's contention that the Panels applied an incorrect standard. The Board also rejected Cole's argument that the Panels based their decisions solely "on the negative aspects in the record[.]" Rather, the Board concluded that the Panels co nsidered "the entire record governed by the factors set forth in . . . N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11." In addition, the Board found that the Panels properly considered Cole's "commission of serious disciplinary infractions" as permitted under N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11 (b)(2), and Cole's "adjustment to incarceration to determine [his] suitability for parole[,]" as permitted under N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11(b)(4). Similarly, Cole's statements "reflecting on the substantial likelihood that he will commit another crime [,]" were properly considered by the Panels pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11(b)(17) .7 A - 2010
- 14T4

In addition, the Board determined that the Panels' consideration of information classified as confidential pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 2.2(c) was appropriate , and the Board was in agreement with
both the Panels' utilization of the information and its classification as confidential . In rejecting Cole's contentions that his acknowledgement of responsibility for his wrongdoing and his rehabilitative efforts were disregarded, the Boar d noted that "program participation is one factor of many . . . and is not the only indicator of rehabilitation ." Further, the Board found that Cole's "program participation [did] not negate the fact that [Cole] still lack[ed] insight into [his] criminal behavior, den[ied his] crime and minimize[d his] conduct." The Board explained :

[A]lthough it appears that you have made some progress, your criminal behavior is deeply rooted as evidenced by your many institutional infractions. This contradicts your ass ertion of sufficient rehabilitation. Further, . . . you have a serious and extensive substance abuse problem and . . . you admit to being "very very intoxicated" at the time of the present offense. The Board notes that while acknowledging the serious co nsequences of your criminal activity and substance abuse is a step towards rehabilitation, it represents only an initial effort at rehabilitation . Further, the Board finds . . . that you are either unable or unwilling to sufficiently address your addictio n/extreme conduct with substantive counseling. Additionally, your continued accrual of institutional infractions makes obtaining the counseling you8 A - 2010
- 14T4 need even more difficult. The Board further finds that your admission of guilt may help you to develop insight into the causes of your criminal behavior, but does not equate to a change in your behavior. The Board finds that . . . [y] ou have a prolonged and distinct history of violence which cannot be merely qualified and excused. You have failed t o explore and address the root causes of your violent and maladaptive conduct through institutional programming or by some other method which could yield progress in this key area. Therefore, in assessing your case, the Board concurs with the determinatio n of the Board panel that, based on the aggregate of all relevant factors, there is a substantial likelihood that you will commit another crime if released on parole at this time.

. . . . Finally, the Board finds that other than your own interpretation of information that is already part of the record[,] you have not identified any material facts the Board panel failed to consider or any written Board policy or procedure to which the Board panel's decision is contrary. Cole filed this appeal, presenting the f ollowing contentions for our consideration :

POINT ONE
THE PAROLE BOARD DETERMINATION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT IF RELEASED, THE APPELLANT WOULD COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME.
POINT TWO
THE FET IMPOSED IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE REDUCED.9 A - 2010
- 14T4

We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11
- 3(e )(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the Board 's comprehensive written decision. We add only the following brief comments. Our review of the Board's decision s is limited. Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd. , 368 N.J. Super. 175, 179 (App. Div.), certif. denied , 180 N.J. 452 (2004). "Parole Board decisions are highly individualized discretionary appraisals, and should only be reversed if found to be arbitrary or capricious." Id. at 179
- 80 (citations and internal quotation m arks omitted). As directed by our Supreme Court, our task is to determine

(1)whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policy, i.e., did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support t he findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. [ Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd. , 166 N.J. 113, 172 (2001).] Thus, 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. State10 A - 2010
- 14T4

Parole Bd. , 347 N .J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002). We "must determine whether the factual finding could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the whole record."
Hare , supra , 368 N.J. Super. at 179. In making this determination, we "may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the agency, and an agency's exercise of its statutorily
- delegated responsibilities is accorded a strong presumption of reasonableness." McGowan , supra , 347 N.J. Super. at 563 (citation omitted). Accordingly, "[t]he b urden of showing that an action was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious rests upon the appellant." Ibid.
Under N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.21(a)(1), upon a determination to deny parole to a prison inmate, the standard future parole eligibility date upon which the inmate shall be primarily eligible for parole shall be twenty - seven additional months for "a prison inmate serving a sentence for . . . kidnapping or serving any minimum
- maximum or specific sentence in excess of [fourteen]
years [.] " However, the Board may exceed the FET guidelines if the standard term is "clearly inappropriate due to the inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future criminal behavior." N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.21(d). In determining that the presumpti ve FE T terms are "clearly inappropriate, the three
member panel shall consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11." Ibid.11 A - 2010
- 14T4

Here, we discern no basis to disturb the Board's decision. The Board considered all relevant factors under N.J.A.C. 10A:71
- 3.11, and its decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and is entitled to our deference . Likewise, w e are satisfied that the imposition of a 168
- month FET, although lengthy, was neither arbitrary , capricious nor unreason able . See McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd. , 347 N.J. Super. 544, 565 (App. Div. 2002) (affirming the imposition of a thirty
- year FET based on appellant's high likelihood of recidivism). Affirmed.