SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3120-21 

EDWIN RIVERA, 

 Appellant, 

v.

NEW JERSEY STATE 

PAROLE BOARD, 

 Respondent. 

____________________

Submitted April 29, 2024 – Decided May 10, 2024 

Before Judges Mawla, Chase and Vinci. 

On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board. 

Edwin Rivera, appellant pro se. 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3120-21

Appellant Edwin Rivera, self-represented, appeals from an April 27, 2022 

final decision of the New Jersey State Parole Board ("Board") denying him 

parole and establishing a ninety-six-month future eligibility term ("FET"). We 

affirm. 

I.

In 1983, Rivera, who was on parole, stabbed a man several times. An 

autopsy concluded the victim's cause of death was "homicide by stabbing, 

penetration of the right lung and hea[r]t. Massive hemorrhage." The weapon 

was believed to be an icepick or screwdriver. 

On September 15, 1983, a jury convicted Rivera of first-degree murder, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful 

purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with 

thirty years of parole ineligibility for murder and a concurrent five-year sentence 

on the weapons charge. 

At the time of the conviction, Rivera had three prior convictions for 

aggravated assault, three for robbery, two for atrocious assault and battery, as 

well as convictions for receiving stolen property, unlawful possession of a 

weapon, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, 

and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. Rivera also had two prior 
3 A-3120-21

opportunities on parole but violated both by committing new criminal offenses. 

He has committed twenty-six total institutional disciplinary infractions during 

his incarceration, including thirteen "asterisk" (serious) infractions. 

When Rivera first became eligible for parole in 2015, he was denied same, 

and a 120-month FET was ordered. We affirmed both the denial and FET. 

Rivera v. N.J. State Parole Bd., No. A-2813-15 (App. Div. July 13, 2017). Since 

his last panel hearing, he committed four infractions, each involving illegal 

narcotics. His most recent infraction occurred on December 6, 2018, when he 

was found guilty of committing prohibited act *.204, Use of a Prohibited 

Substance. 

On July 21, 2021, Rivera again became eligible for parole and received a 

hearing. The hearing officer referred the matter to a two-member board panel 

for review. 

The two-member panel denied Rivera parole after determining "a 

substantial likelihood" existed that Rivera "would commit a crime if released on 

parole at th[at] time." The panel based its decision on the following factors: (1) 

facts and circumstances of the offense; (2) repetitive prior record; (3) nature of 

criminal record increasingly more serious; (4) committed to incarceration for 

multiple offenses; (5) prior opportunity on parole revoked for commission of a 
4 A-3120-21

new offense; (6) current opportunity on parole revoked for commission of a new 

offense; (7) current opportunity on parole revoked for technical violations, 

including failure to report, and change of residence without permission; (8) prior 

incarcerations and prior opportunity on parole failed to deter criminal behavior; 

(9) commission of institutional disciplinary infractions, which are numerous, 

persistent, serious in nature, resulting in loss of commutation time, confinement 

in detention and administrative segregation and which are consistent with prior 

criminal record; (10) commission of institutional disciplinary infractions since 

the last panel hearing, which are numerous, persistent, serious in nature, 

resulting in loss of commutation time, confinement in administrative 

segregation and which are consistent with prior criminal record, with the most 

recent infraction occurring in December 2018; (11) insufficient problem 

resolution, specifically lack of insight into criminal behavior, minimization of 

conduct and a failure to sufficiently address a substance abuse problem, as 

demonstrated by the panel interview, documentation in the case file and 

confidential material/professional report; (12) commission of current offenses 

while on bail; and (13) the results of an objective risk assessment indicating a 

"medium" risk of recidivism. 
5 A-3120-21

Regarding his insufficient problem resolution, the Board noted, "Rivera 

has a long history of drug addiction. He agreed that drugs have been a factor in 

his long criminal history. He does not have a clear idea what he will do for work 

upon release." 

The Board found the following mitigating factors: (1) minimal offense 

record; (2) participation in institutional programs; (3) participation in programs 

specific to behavior; (4) institutional reports reflect a favorable institutional 

adjustment; (5) attempts made to enroll in programs but was not admitted; (6) 

minimum custody status achieved; and (7) commutation time restored. After 

considering the mitigating factors, the panel found the reasons for denial 

weighed more heavily and denied parole. The matter was referred to a threemember board panel to establish a FET. 

In September 2021, a three-member Board panel convened and 

established a ninety-six-month FET. The panel explained its reasoning in an 

eleven-page narrative decision. The three-member panel relied on the same 

factors as the two-member panel in denying Rivera parole, detailing, among 

other things, his current insufficient problem resolution, including a lack of 

insight into his criminal behavior, minimization of conduct, and his failure to 

sufficiently address a substance abuse problem. 
6 A-3120-21

Rivera appealed from the panel's decisions to the full Board. On April 27, 

2022, the full Board affirmed the denial of parole and the imposition of a ninetysix-month FET. The Board rejected Rivera's arguments that the panel failed to 

consider material facts, including the fact he committed his crimes more than 

thirty years ago, failed to document a preponderance of the evidence indicating

a substantial likelihood that he will commit a new crime if released on parole, 

and improperly focused only on aggravating factors while ignoring mitigating 

factors. Rather, the Board found the panel appropriately considered his criminal 

and community supervision history, and his recent history of disciplinary 

infractions. In addition, the Board found Rivera's responses to the panel at his 

parole hearing, coupled with the "documentation in the case file" and a 

confidential mental-health evaluation, established Rivera "lack[s] insight into 

his criminal behavior," minimizes his conduct, and has not sufficiently 

addressed a substance abuse problem. 

On appeal, Rivera raises the following point: 

POINT I. 

THE TWO MEMBER BOARD PANEL FAILED TO 

DOCUMENT THAT A PREPONDERANCE OF THE 

EVIDENCE INDICATES A SUBSTANTIAL 

LIKELIHOOD THAT IF RELEASED ON PAROLE 

APPELLANT RIVERA WILL COMMIT A CRIME. 
7 A-3120-21

II. 

We conduct a limited and deferential review of a Parole Board's decision. 

See Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175, 179 (App. Div. 2004). 

"Appellate review of parole determinations 'focuses upon whether the factual 

findings made by the Parole Board could reasonably have been reached on 

sufficient credible evidence in the record.'" Perry v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 459 

N.J. Super. 186, 193 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting Trantino v. N.J. State Parole 

Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 199 (2001)). 

The Parole Board, however, does not exercise "unlimited or absolute" 

discretionary power. Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 250 N.J. 431, 455 (2022). 

Accordingly, we "will reverse a decision of the Board only if the offender shows 

that the decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, lacked credible support in the 

record, or violated legislative policies." K.G. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 458 N.J. 

Super. 1, 30 (App. Div. 2019). The appellant carries "[t]he burden of showing 

the agency's action was arbitrary, unreasonable[,] or capricious." Bowden v. 

Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301, 304 (App. Div. 1993). Board 

decisions are "accorded a strong presumption of reasonableness." McGowan v. 

N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002). However, we 

review questions of law de novo. See Perry, 459 N.J. Super. at 193-94.
8 A-3120-21

Under the Parole Act of 1979,1 which governs Rivera's parole because his 

offenses were committed in 1983, the Board "must determine by a 

preponderance of the evidence whether there is a substantial likelihood the 

inmate will commit another crime if released." Hare, 368 N.J. Super. at 180; 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53 (1979). A substantial likelihood "requires a finding that 

is more than a mere probability and considerably less than a certainty." Acoli, 

250 N.J. at 456. 

"N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(a) provides that the grant or denial of parole must 

'be based on the aggregate of all pertinent factors.'" Id. at 457 (quoting N.J.A.C. 

10A:71-3.11(a)); see also Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 360 

("Common sense dictates that [the Board's] prediction as to future conduct . . . 

be grounded on due consideration of the aggregate of all of the factors which 

may have any pertinence."). "That regulation sets forth a list of twenty-four 

factors that the Parole Board 'shall consider,' in addition to other factors it may 

deem relevant, in making a parole decision." Acoli, 250 N.J. at 457 (quoting 

N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)). As the Supreme Court in Acoli explained: 

Some of those factors include: facts and circumstances 

related to the underlying crime; offenses and 

1

 N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.45 to -123.69
9 A-3120-21

disciplinary infractions committed while incarcerated; 

participation in institutional programs and academic or 

vocational education programs; documentation 

reflecting personal goals, personal strengths or 

motivation for law-abiding behavior; mental and 

emotional health; parole plans; availability of 

community resources or support services; statements by 

the inmate reflecting on the likelihood that he will 

commit another crime; the failure to rehabilitate; 

history of employment and education; and statement or 

testimony of any victim. 

[Ibid. (citing N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b)).] 

III. 

Rivera's argument focuses on two main themes: first, he claims because 

his conviction is over thirty years old, its remoteness has caused it to lose any 

relevance; and second, Rivera argues his institutional infractions are related to 

his lifelong struggle with drug use, and because he has been addressing his 

substance abuse since the hearing occurred, through participation in the 

Gateway Program, the Board should not have used the infractions as a basis for 

its denial. 

We reject Rivera's argument the Board failed to "justify the denial of [his] 

parole." Contrary to Rivera's assertions, the Board, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 

10A:71-3.11(b), appropriately considered the facts and circumstances of his 

crimes, the nature and pattern of his previous convictions, his previous 
10 A-3120-21

adjustment to probation, parole and incarceration, and his history of institutional 

disciplinary infractions in deciding his suitability for parole. These are all static 

factors the Board can consider in making a parole release decision. N.J.A.C. 

10A:71-3.11(b)(2), (3), (4) & (7). Moreover, although his convictions are 

remote, he has accumulated violations and used illegal drugs continuously while 

incarcerated during the intervening years. 

Similarly, appellant's subsequent entry into the Gateway Program, while 

proper for consideration by a subsequent panel under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-

3.11(b)(8), was not available to this panel at the time they rendered their 

decision. However, the panel considered his attempt to enroll as a mitigating 

factor. Moreover, this panel properly considered the psychological report 

describing a medium risk for reoffending based in part on "extensive substance 

abuse problems with recent relapses even during incarceration." Appellant's 

substance abuse issues also supported the conclusion he has "severe 

psychological problems" and his risk for future violence is "most related to [the] 

possibility for substance abuse relapse." 

The Board also appropriately considered the panel's determination that 

Rivera's statements demonstrated "insufficient problem resolution," and "[a] 
11 A-3120-21

lack [of] insight" into his criminal behavior. Its determination was therefore 

based on sufficient credible evidence in the record and should not be disturbed. 

To the extent not addressed, Rivera's remaining arguments lack sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in our written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed.