SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0153-16T4

ALI MUSLIM, f/n/a 

ROMEO WEBB,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE

PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Submitted March 6, 2018 – Decided June 26, 2018

Before Judges Fasciale and Sumners.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole 

Board.

Ali Muslim, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney 

for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Ali Muslim appeals from a July 27, 2016 final agency decision 

by the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) denying his request 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0153-16T4

for parole and establishing a one-hundred and twenty-month future 

eligibility term (FET). We affirm.

In August 1985, sixteen-year-old Muslim, and two other 

cohorts, robbed at gunpoint four victims, who were walking home 

from an evening outdoor church service. While seeking to open one 

of the victim's pocketbook, Muslim's gun accidentally fired, with 

the bullet hitting her in the head, causing her death. Tried as 

an adult, Muslim was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to 

life imprisonment with a thirty-year period of parole 

ineligibility.

Having served thirty years, Muslim became eligible for parole 

for the first time on August 8, 2015. After his initial hearing, 

the hearing officer referred the matter to a two-member Board 

panel, which denied parole and referred the matter to a threemember Board panel for consideration of a FET outside of the 

administrative guidelines. In a six-page single-spaced written 

decision, the three-member panel established a one-hundred and 

twenty-month FET. Muslim appealed to the full Board, which issued 

a five-page single-spaced decision affirming the denial of parole 

and the one-hundred and twenty-month FET.

Before us, Muslim argues the following points:
3 A-0153-16T4

POINT I

THE AMENDMENT TO N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.56 

PERMITTING CONSIDERATION OF ANY INFORMATION, 

AS OPPOSED TO NEW INFORMATION AFTER FUTURE 

ELIGIBILITY TERMS ARE IMPOSED VIOLATES DUE 

PROCESS, EX POST FACTO AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL 

PUNISHMENT PROVISIONS RESULTANT IN A DE FACTO 

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE FOR A CRIME 

COMMITTED AS A JUVENILE.

A. DUE PROCESS LIBERTY PROTECTIONS.

B. EX POST FACTO VIOLATIONS.

C. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT VIOLATIONS.

(1) FEDERAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO 

[MILLER].

[1]

(2) STATE ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO [COMER].[2]

POINT II

THE USE OF FACTORS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE 

REGULATION GOVERNING RELEASE CRITERIA IS 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IS THE RISK ASSESSMENT 

SCORE AS IT DOES NOT SERVE TO RESULT IN AN 

AGENCY DECISION BASED ON SOME EVIDENCE 

SUPPORTING IT AND AS SUCH VIOLATES DUE 

PROCESS.

A. REGULARLY COMPLIANCE.

B. THE ALLEGED LACK OF INSIGHT AND UNRESOLVED 

PROBLEM RESOLUTION ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE 

RECORD IN THAT APPELLANT HAS ABSTAINED FROM 

BOTH VIOLENCE AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE FOR YEARS, 

AND CONTRADICT N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(B)[(1)] 

RELEASE CRITERION, COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE 

WHILE INCARCERATED IN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT 

 

1 Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).

2 State v. Zuber, 227 N.J. 422 (2017).
4 A-0153-16T4

COMMITTED AN OFFENSE IN OVER 30 YEARS OF 

IMPRISONMENT.

C. ANY "MINIMIZATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY" BY 

APPELLANT IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO 

RESPONDENT ELICITING SUCH.

D. RISK ASSESSMENT, LONG TERM AND RACIAL BIAS.

(I) MARCHAK, SKEEM AND DOUGLAS STUDY OF 

THE REVISED LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY IN 

PREDICTING RECIDIVISM AFTER LONG TERM 

INCARCERATION.

(II) FASS, HEILBRUN, DEMATTEO AND FREITZ 

ON THE LSI-R AND COMPAS.

(III) WATKINS RESEARCH BULLETIN, 

CORRECTIVE SERVICES EVALUATION AND 

STATISTICS.

POINT III

THE FAILURE TO CONSIDER A SUBMISSION BY 

APPELLANT DEMONSTRATING LOW RECIDIVISM RATES 

OF HIS AGE GROUP, LIFERS IMPRISONED FOR IN 

EXCESS OF 20 YEARS, AND HIS 60% CHANCE OF NONREC[I]DIVISM VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

POINT IV

APPELLANT EXCEEDED THE DIRECTIONS OF 

RESPONDENT AS TO WHAT TO ACCOMPLISH WHILE 

INCARCERATED AND IS ENTITLED TO RELEASE 

PURSUANT TO THE 1997 STATUTE AS HAVING 

MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATED IN HIS 

REHABILITATION AND RESPONDENT HAS USED GPS 

MONITORING TO ENSURE PERSON ON SUPERVISED 

RELEASE COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 

AND CREATE NO DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

We have considered the contentions raised by Muslim and 

conclude that they are without sufficient merit to warrant 
5 A-0153-16T4

discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm 

substantially for the reasons expressed by the Board in its 

thorough decision. We add the following remarks.

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, 7-8 (App. Div. 2000). The Board must consider the 

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

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).

An inmate serving a minimum term in excess of fourteen years 

is ordinarily assigned a twenty-seven month FET after a denial of 

parole. See N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(a)(1). However, N.J.A.C. 10:71-

3.21(d) allows a three-member panel to establish a FET outside of 
6 A-0153-16T4

the administrative guidelines if the presumptive twenty-sevenmonth FET is "clearly inappropriate due to the inmate's lack of 

satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future 

criminal behavior."

Here, the Board's action is consistent with the applicable 

law, there is substantial credible evidence in the record as a 

whole to support its findings, and the Board reached conclusions 

that were based on the relevant facts. The Board made extensive 

findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrating the basis 

for its decision to deny Muslim parole. And in its final decision, 

the Board provided multiple reasons for imposing the one-hundred 

and twenty-month FET, which although lengthy, is neither arbitrary 

nor capricious. On this record, we have no reason to second-guess 

those findings or conclusions.

Affirmed.