SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3128-18T2

DAVID COLLINS,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE

PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted July 28, 2020 – Decided August 5, 2020

Before Judges Sumners and Mayer.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

David Collins, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Christopher 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3128-18T2

David Collins appeals the February 27, 2019 final agency decision of the 

New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying him parole and imposing a 

twenty-month Future Eligibility Term (FET). We affirm. 

On December 15, 2016, Collins pled guilty to second-degree endangering 

the welfare of a child by storing or maintaining an item depicting child 

pornography. On November 3, 2017, he was sentenced to a five-year prison 

term. However, on April 5, 2018, his sentence was amended to remove his 

sentence to the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (Avenel).

On December 31, 2018, Collins became eligible for parole for the first 

time. At his August 30, 2018 hearing, the parole officer referred the matter to a 

two-member Board panel. 

Collins was denied parole by the two-member panel on October 1, 2018. 

In determining there was a reasonable likelihood Collins would violate 

conditions of his parole if released, the panel cited: the facts and circumstances 

of the offense; prior offense record; prior incarceration did not deter criminal 

behavior; insufficient problem resolution, particularly noting, a lack of insight 

into criminal behavior, gambling problem not sufficiently addressed, and very 

weak post-release plan given he would have no responsibility while receiving 

SSI disability; and risk assessment evaluation. The panel also acknowledged
3

A-3128-18T2

mitigating factors: minimal offense record; participation in institutional 

programs; and favorable institutional adjustment. In addition, the panel 

established a twenty-month FET.

On February 6, 2019, while Collins' appeal to the full Board was pending, 

the two-member panel administratively amended its October 1, 2018 decision to 

add the mitigating factors of: infraction free; and attempt made to enroll and 

participate in programs but not admitted. The panel noted these factors "were 

in the record at the time [Collins'] case was assessed and . . . were relied upon 

by the [panel] in rendering the decision to deny [him] parole." Also, while his 

appeal was pending, Collins was granted minimum custody status. 

On February 27, 2019, the full Board issued its decision affirming the 

panel's decision denying Collins' parole and imposing a twenty-month FET.

Before us, Collins argues:

POINT I

THE [NEW JERSEY] PAROLE BOARD DID NOT 

ADHERE TO N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53, REQUIRING

THEY SHOW THE APPELLANT DID NOT 

COOPERATE IN HIS OWN REHABILITATION, OR 

IS LIKELY TO VIOLATE CONDITIONS OF 

PAROLE IF RELEASED.
4

A-3128-18T2

POINT II

THE REVIEWING PANEL FAILED TO CONSIDER 

MATERIAL FACTS DURING THE OCTOBER 1, 

2018 INTERVIEW, REQUIRING A 

"CLARIFICATION" ON FEBRUARY 6, 2019, 

WHEREBY MORE MITIGATING FACTORS WERE 

FOUND.

POINT III

THE APPELLANT IS MEDICALLY DISABLED; 

THEREFORE THE PANEL'S REASON FOR DENIAL 

THAT HE WOULD SPEND HIS DAYS ON SSI IS 

INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT DUE TO 

MEDICAL DISABLITY, THAT IS THE 

APPELLANT'S ONLY CURRENT OPTION.

In reviewing a final decision of the Board, we consider: (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 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., 154 N.J. 19, 24 (1998). The Board's 

decision to grant or deny parole turns on whether "there is a substantial 

likelihood . . . the inmate will commit" another crime if released. Williams v. 

N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div. 2000). The Board must 

consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)(1)-(23) in making 
5

A-3128-18T2

its decision. The Board, however, is not required to consider each and every

factor; rather, it should consider those applicable to each case. McGowan v. 

N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 561 (App. Div. 2002). The Board 

can consider an inmate's lack of insight into what led him to commit an offense. 

Id. at 558-59. An inmate who is denied parole and is serving a "sentence of least 

four but less than eight years . . . shall serve 20 additional months." N.J.A.C. 

10A:71-3.21(a)(3).

We have considered Collins' contentions and conclude they are without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and 

we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Board in its cogent 

decision. We add the following remarks.

The Board's action is consistent with the applicable law, there is 

substantial credible evidence in the record to support its findings, and its 

conclusions address the relevant facts and arguments raised by Collins. The 

Board's findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrate a sound basis for 

denying Collins' parole. We are likewise satisfied the presumptive twentymonth FET imposed by the Board is supported by the record and is neither 

arbitrary nor capricious. In sum, on this record, we have no reason to second-
6

A-3128-18T2

guess the Board's findings or conclusions and thus defer to its expertise in these 

matters.

Affirmed.