SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4935-16T1

KEVIN SABATINI,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE 

PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

_______________________

Submitted November 29, 2018 – Decided May 28, 2019

Before Judges O'Connor and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Kevin Sabatini, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4935-16T1

Appellant Kevin Sabatini appeals from the May 31, 2017 final agency 

decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying him parole and 

imposing a ninety-six-month future eligibility term (FET). We vacate the final 

decision and remand this matter to the Board for reconsideration of Sabatini's 

request for parole.

Sabatini is serving a life sentence with a mandatory-minimum term of 

twenty-five years for murder and related offenses to which he pleaded guilty in 

1981. He became eligible for parole for the first time on October 16, 2015. 

Sabatini received an initial parole hearing on July 22, 2015, after which the 

hearing officer referred the matter to a Board panel for a further hearing.

On April 18, 2016, a two-member Board panel denied parole and referred 

the matter to a three-member Board panel to establish an FET outside of 

administrative guidelines. See N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(d). The two-member 

panel amended its decision on June 30, 2016. On September 21, 2016, a threemember Board panel imposed a ninety-six-month FET. Sabatini appealed both 

panel decisions to the full Board. On May 31, 2017, the Board issued a written 

decision affirming both panel decisions.

This appeal followed. Appellant raised for the first time in his reply brief 

the argument that Samuel J. Plumeri, Jr., a member of the Board who 
3

A-4935-16T1

participated in reaching the May 31, 2017 decision, was an "arresting and 

investigating" detective for the crimes for which appellant was incarcerated. 

Appellant argued that Plumeri's participation in the Board's decision violated 

the Board's Code of Professional Conduct. It appears that appellant was 

unaware of Plumeri's participation in the Board's decision until the Board filed 

its merits brief and appendix, which included a voting sheet indicating Plumeri's 

vote in favor of the Board's final agency decision.

We ordered supplemental briefing, which revealed that Plumeri had been 

involved in the investigation of appellant's crimes some thirty-six years prior to 

the Board's hearing. Plumeri certified that he had no recollection of 

investigating appellant and that none of the police investigatory documents in 

the Board's possession at the time of the hearing regarding appellant's crimes 

contained Plumeri's name. Plumeri certified that had he recalled having been

involved in the investigation of appellant's crimes, he would have recused 

himself from consideration of appellant's request for parole.

The Board acknowledges that its Code of Professional Conduct and its 

Recusal Policy dictate that Plumeri should have been recused from participating 

in consideration of appellant's request for parole. The Board requests that the 

matter be remanded for a new parole hearing by the full Board without Plumeri's 
4

A-4935-16T1

participation. Appellant has not objected to this request. Under the 

circumstances, a new hearing before the full Board without Plumeri's 

participation is warranted.

The final decision is vacated and the matter remanded to the Board for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.