MICHAEL SANTIAGO VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (STATE PAROLE BOARD) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3799-16T1
MICHAEL SANTIAGO,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted November 15, 2018 – Decided May 29, 2019
Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Michael Santiago, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Michael Santiago appeals from the March 29, 2017 final
agency determination of the New Jersey State Parole Board (Board), which
affirmed the decision of the full Board Panel (full Board) to deny parole and
establish a sixty-month future eligibility term (FET). We affirm.
Appellant is currently an inmate at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.
He is serving an aggregate sentence of life in prison with a twenty-five-year
period of parole ineligibility, following his 1983 convictions for murder, armed
robbery, burglary, theft, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft by unlawful taking.
On May 16, 2015, appellant became eligible for parole for the fifth time.
As of that date, appellant had served approximately thirty-two years of his life
sentence. On November 18, 2015, appellant appeared before the full Board and,
following a hearing, the full Board determined there was a substantial likelihood
appellant would commit a new crime if released on parole. The full Board based
its decision upon the serious nature of the offense appellant had committed, and
the fact he exhibited insufficient problem resolution, including a lack of insight
into his criminal behavior. The latter conclusion was based upon an interview
of appellant by the full Board, documentation in the case file, confidential
material, a pre-parole report, and the results of a risk assessment evaluation.
A-3799-16T1
2
The full Board also considered mitigating factors, which were that
appellant had no prior offense record, had been infraction free since he was last
before the full Board, and had participated in institutional programs – including
those specific to his behavior, and that institutional reports reflected appellant
demonstrated "favorable institutional adjustment."
On May 18, 2016, the full Board considered the evidence presented at the
previous hearing and established a sixty-month FET. In a comprehensive
written decision, the full Board noted that, during the November 18, 2015
hearing, its members had engaged in a discussion with appellant for over two
hours, asking him numerous questions regarding his perception of the murder
and what he had done to gain insight into his "maladaptive and anti-social
behavior/thinking." The full Board found appellant's answers to members'
questions inconsistent, vague and, for the most part, non-responsive.
In its May 16, 2018 opinion, the full Board concluded that, despite
spending three decades in prison, appellant still did not have any substantive
understanding of why he shot and killed the victim. Appellant also did not
understand what he needed to do to ensure he did not engage in criminal activity
if released on parole.
A-3799-16T1
3
The full Board also reviewed the mitigating evidence it had considered at
the November 18, 2015 hearing but, in the final analysis, determined appellant
required "additional time to address deficiencies in [his] lack of insight" into
why he killed the victim, as well as what he needed to do to keep from engaging
in criminal conduct in the future. The full Board thus imposed a FET of sixty
months, estimating appellant's new parole eligibility date would be sometime in
March 2019.
Appellant filed an administrative appeal challenging the full Board's
determination, principally alleging the full Board failed to consider material
facts. In a March 29, 2017 written decision, the Board affirmed the full Board's
decision. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant raises the following contentions:
POINT I: THE [FULL BOARD] (STATE) HAS
FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO
SHOW THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
LIKELIHOOD THAT MR. SANTIAGO WILL BE A
RECIDIVIST – TO SUPPORT THE PANEL'S
DENIAL OF PAROLE.
POINT II: THE PANEL OR [FULL BOARD], AND
OR THE STATE CANNOT DISPUTE OR OFFER
EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO MR. SANTIAGO'S
RECORD THAT DEMONSTRATES
REHABILITATION.
A-3799-16T1
4
We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable
legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We also conclude that there
is sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole supporting the Board's
final decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add only the following brief comments.
The Supreme Court has held that the Board's "decisions are highly
'individualized discretionary appraisals.'" Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166
N.J. 113, 173 (2001) (quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348,
359 (1973)). "Accordingly, the Board 'has broad but not unlimited discretionary
powers,' and its determinations 'are always judicially reviewable for
arbitrariness.'" Ibid. (quoting Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 58 N.J. 238, 242
(1971)). The Board's decisions "depend[] on an amalgam of elements, some of
which are factual but many of which are purely subjective appraisals by the
Board members based upon their experience with the difficult and sensitive task
of evaluating the advisability of parole release." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb.
Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1979). As the Court observed, parole
boards should focus on "what a man is and what he may become rather than
simply what he has done." Id. at 10 (quoting Sanford H. Kadish, The Advocate
A-3799-16T1
5
and the Expert-Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 803,
813 (1961)).
In examining the record in light of the arguments raised, we are satisfied
the Board adhered to these principles and its own guidelines in rendering the
final decision. The Board's findings were based "on sufficient credible evidence
in the whole record[,]" Trantino, 154 N.J. at 24 (quoting N.J. State Parole Bd.
v. Cestari, 224 N.J. Super. 534, 547 (App. Div. 1988)), and are entitled to our
deference. We find nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Board's
determination to deny parole and establish a sixty-month FET.
Affirmed.
A-3799-16T1
6