SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0598-18T4

EVERETT MCGLOTTEN,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE

PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

_______________________

Submitted February 10, 2020 – Decided April 28, 2020

Before Judges Sumners and Natali.

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Everett McGlotten, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0598-18T4

Everett McGlotten, an inmate at South Woods State Prison, appeals the 

New Jersey State Parole Board's (the Board) August 29, 2018 final agency 

decision denying him parole and imposing a sixty-month Future Eligibility Term 

(FET). We affirm. 

On July 20, 1988, a jury found McGlotten guilty of first-degree murder,

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2), second-degree possession of a weapon for an 

unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a), and third-degree unlawful possession of 

a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). The murder victim was shot in the back of the 

head by McGlotten's co-defendant in the victim's apartment, when McGlotten 

and the co-defendant accused him of stealing the co-defendant's drugs. On 

September 30, 1988, McGlotten was sentenced to an aggregate life term with a 

mandatory-minimum term of thirty years.

On January 13, 2018, McGlotten became eligible for parole for the first 

time. At his September 22, 2017 hearing, the parole officer referred the matter 

to a two-member Board panel.

McGlotten was denied parole by the two-member panel on November 2, 

2017. In determining there was a substantial likelihood McGlotten would 

commit a new crime if he was released, the panel cited numerous reasons, 

including but not limited to: the facts and circumstances of the murder offense; 
3

A-0598-18T4

an extensive and increasingly more serious prior criminal record; the 

commission of numerous, persistent, and serious prison institutional infractions, 

four with the most recent one on September 7, 2004; insufficient problem 

resolution; lack of remorse for the victim; risk assessment evaluation; and lack 

of an adequate parole plan to assist in successful reintegration into the 

community. The panel also acknowledged several mitigating factors, including 

but not limited to: opportunities on community supervision completed without 

any violations; participation in institutional programs; favorable institutional 

adjustment; restored commutation time; and minimal custody status achieved 

and maintained. In addition, the panel requested a three-member Board panel 

establish a FET outside the presumptive twenty-seven-month limit. N.J.A.C. 

10A:71-3.21(a)(1).

On January 24, 2018, the three-member panel confirmed denial of parole 

and established a sixty-month FET. About three months later, the panel set forth 

its reasoning in a nine-page written decision, essentially citing the same reasons 

for denial and recognizing the same mitigating factors as the two-member panel 

did when denying parole. The panel noted that with the applicable commutation 

time, earned work credits, and minimum custody credits, McGlotten's parole 

eligibility date is October 26, 2021.
4

A-0598-18T4

McGlotten appealed to the full Board, which affirmed the panels' 

decisions for essentially the same reasons in an August 29, 2018 four-page 

written decision.

Before us, McGlotten argues:

POINT 1

THE PAROLE BOARD UTILIZED INCORRECT 

STANDARDS IN REENDERING ITS DECISION TO 

DENY PAROLE TO APPELLANT.

POINT 2

THE HEARING OFFFICER VIOLATED WRITTEN

BOARD POLICY BY FAILING TO ESTABLISH A 

NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS FOR DENIAL

AND THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A 

SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT APPELLANT 

WILL COMMIT A CRIME UNDER THE LAWS OF 

THIS STATE IF RELEASED ON PAROLE AT THIS 

TIME.

POINT 3

THE BOARD PANEL DENIED APPELLANT HIS 

RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DUE TO 

THE BOARD'S PANEL'S VIOLATION OF 

WRITTEN BOARD POLICY.

POINT 4

A BOARD MEMBER PARTICIPATING IN THE 

DELIBERATIONS OR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE 

HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S 
5

A-0598-18T4

PROFESSIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT. (NOT 

RAISED BELOW).

POINT 5

THE PAROLE BOARD UTILIZED SUBJECTIVE 

PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS SUCH AS LACK OF 

INSIGHT, REMORSE, AND MINIMIZES CONDUCT 

AS THE BASIS TO DENY PAROLE RENDERING 

THE DECISION UNCONSTITUIONAL ON 

VAGUENESS GROUNDS

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 factors enumerated 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). The Board 
6

A-0598-18T4

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

Id. at 558-59. 

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 threemember panel to establish a FET outside of the administrative guidelines if the 

presumptive twenty-seven-month FET is "clearly inappropriate due to the 

inmate's lack of satisfactory progress in reducing the likelihood of future 

criminal behavior." 

We have considered McGlotten's contentions and conclude they are 

without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), 

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

thorough 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 the Board 

reached conclusions based on relevant facts. The Board made extensive 

findings, which we need not repeat here, demonstrating the basis for its decision 

to deny McGlotten's parole. The Board provided multiple reasons for imposing 

a sixty-month FET, which is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and McGlotten 
7

A-0598-18T4

may actually be eligible to be released on parole in October 2021. Additionally, 

McGlotten did not argue before the Board that a member on the two-member 

panel acted unprofessionally during its hearing, thus we will not consider the

argument because it is neither jurisdictional in nature nor do does it substantially 

implicate the public interest. Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) 

(citation omitted). In sum, on this record, we have no reason to second-guess 

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

matters.

Affirmed.