Court Opinion

ID: 9728242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:57.278936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.075506
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, P. J. A. D.,
Temporarily Assigned (concurring) : I am in full agreement with the guidelines and principles for Parole Board hearings and decisions set forth in foregoing opinion. However, I think it should be made clear that judicial review of Parole Board matters is limited to a consideration of whether guidelines and principles have been substantially satisñed, and ordinarily will not involve a review of the merits of the Parole Board decision. As stated by Judge (now Justice) William J. Brennan, Jr. in White v. Parole Board of State of N. J., 17 N. J. Super. 580, 586 (App. Div. 1952) :
“The grant or denial of parole is a matter for the exercise of proper judgment by the paroling authority and is not in any way a judicial function. In re Fitzpatrick, 9 N. J. Super. 511 (Cty. Ct. 1950), affirmed 14 N. J. Super. 213 (App. Div. 1951). Judicial review of an action such as that before us here is limited essentially to a determination whether it was taken within the statutory powers of the parole authority, properly applied. In re O’Connor, 130 N. J. L. 194 (Sup. Ct. 1943).”
Of course, if the Parole Board decision on the merits is palpably arbitrary or clearly erroneous, it would not be immune from judicial correction.
For remandment — Chief Justice Weinteaub, Justices Jacobs, Hall and Mountain, and Judges Coneobd, Sullivan and Lewis — 7.
Opposed — Hone.