STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EVERETT MCGLOTTEN (88-02-0124, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4410-19T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff- Respondent,
v.
EVERETT MCGLOTTEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted October 15, 2020 – Decided October 28, 2020
Before Judges Sumners and Geiger.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Union County, Indictment No. 88-02-0124.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Christiane Cannon, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Milton S. Leibowitz, Special
Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Everett McGlotten is an inmate at South Woods State Prison.
He appeals from a June 19, 2020 Criminal Part order denying his motion for
release from imprisonment under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2). Defendant claims he is
subject to an enhanced risk of serious medical complications if he contracts
COVID-19 because of his underlying medical conditions, which include: mild,
intermittent asthma; hypertension; hypertensive kidney disease; diabetes; and
hepatitis C. He is now seventy-one years old.
We derive the following facts from the record. In 1988, defendant was
convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose, and third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon. He is
serving an aggregate life term with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant first became eligible for parole in January 2018. A two-
member Parole Board panel denied parole, determining there was a substantial
likelihood defendant would commit a new crime if he was released. The panel
cited numerous reasons, including how the murder was committed; defendant's
"extensive and increasingly more serious" criminal record; his "commission of
numerous, persistent, and serious prison institutional infractions"; "insufficient
problem resolution"; and the results of a risk assessment evaluation. The panel
A-4410-19T4
2
requested that a three-member Board panel establish a Future Eligibility Term
(FET) outside the presumptive twenty-seven-month limit.
In January 2018, a three-member Board panel confirmed the denial of
parole and established a sixty-month FET. Defendant sought further agency
review. In an August 2018 final agency decision, the full Parole Board affirmed
the parole denial and sixty-month FET for essentially the same reasons
expressed by the Board panels.
Defendant appealed and we affirmed the Parole Board's final decision
substantially for the reasons expressed by the Parole Board. McGlotten v. N.J.
State Parole Bd., No. A-0598-18 (App. Div. Apr. 28, 2020) (slip op. at 5).
Defendant is currently eligible for parole on December 17, 2020.
Soon thereafter, defendant moved for immediate release under Rule 3:21-
10(b)(2). He argued "that his advanced age and various medical conditions
(diabetes, asthma, hypertension, mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation, and
hepatitis C) 'put him at extreme risk of serious illness and death if he contracts
COVID-19.'" The trial court denied the motion for the reasons set forth in a June
26, 2018 written decision.
The court applied the factors set forth in State v. Priester, 99 N.J. 123,
133-37 (1985). It found that "[d]efendant suffers from a high-risk medical
A-4410-19T4
3
condition, which was not necessarily caused by his own lifestyle, that he is at
high risk age, and that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a 'changed
circumstance'" that occurred since defendant was sentenced. (footnote omitted).
The court noted that only defendant's age and diabetes are recognized by
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as creating a high-risk of
serious medical complications if he contracts COVID-19. Scrutiny of
defendant's medical records and CDC guidelines revealed:
Defendant has mild, intermittent asthma, but the CDC
only labels the moderate-to-severe variety as high-risk.
Furthermore, [d]efendant’s records consistently show
normal respiratory function. The [d]efendant has
hypertension, or high blood pressure, but the CDC only
includes pulmonary hypertension (excessive blood
pressure extending to the lungs) as high-risk. While
mi[t]ral and tricuspid valve regurgitation is a condition
that affects the heart by restricting blood flow, the CDC
does not consider it a serious heart condition which may
increase risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The
CDC warns that chronic kidney disease of any stage
increases risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The
CDC warns that chronic kidney disease of any stage
increases risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
While the [d]efendant has hypertensive kidney disease,
this does not fall under the same category. Additionally,
as the State points out, the [d]efendant is not treated
with dialysis. Lastly, the [d]efendant is diagnosed with
hepatitis C. This disease, which affects the liver, is not
currently recognized by the CDC as a high-risk
condition.
[(footnote omitted).]
A-4410-19T4
4
While it recognized that "[d]efendant's advanced age and diabetes do render him
high-risk to experience severe illness from COVID-19," the court concluded
those conditions were not sufficiently "dire" to warrant "extraordinary relief"
under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2).
The court then reviewed defendant's criminal history. Defendant was
serving a sentence for murder, the most serious crime. The victim was shot
"execution-style" by a co-defendant.
Defendant has an extensive criminal record that included convictions for
armed robbery and assault with intent to kill. The court found defendant's record
demonstrates a pattern of illegal conduct and violent behavior, culminating in
murder. The court gave heavy weight to the Parole Board's finding that
defendant was substantially likely to commit a new crime if released. The court
also considered defendant's "numerous, persistent, and serious institutional
infractions" while incarcerated and the sixty-month FET imposed by the Parole
Board. The court found "[t]hese facts all weigh[ed] against release and show[ed]
why the [d]efendant is a threat to public safety."
The court considered defendant's participation in beneficial programs
while incarcerated and most recent behavior but was "not convinced" he "will
not be a threat to the public if released." It concluded that aside from defendant's
A-4410-19T4
5
advanced age and high-risk medical condition, "the remaining Priester factors
all weigh[ed] in favor of the State," precluding release under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2).
This appeal followed. Defendant raises a single point for our
consideration:
THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
DENYING MEDICAL RELIEF TO [DEFENDANT]
BECAUSE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
[DEFENDANT] IS NOT A THREAT TO THE
PUBLIC AND HE FACES A LIFE-THREATENING
RISK AT SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON.
Defendant contends on appeal that he is an elderly, partially paralyzed
prisoner with no institutional infractions since 2004, who "is in poor physical
health, suffering from right-side paralysis subsequent to a stroke, diabetes,
hypertension, history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypertensiv e kidney
disease, asthma, and hepatitis C," who poses no threat to the public if released.
Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) permits an inmate to move at any time to amend a
custodial sentence to permit release from incarceration because of illness or
infirmity. Courts apply a balancing test to determine whether relief should be
granted under the rule. Priester, 99 N.J. at 135-37.
Generally, to obtain such "extraordinary relief" under the rule, a defendant
must show: (1) he suffers from a serious medical condition and the negative
impact incarceration has on his health; and (2) a change in circumstances
A-4410-19T4
6
between the time of sentencing and the motion. Id. at 135-36. When
determining whether release is appropriate, the factors that courts consider
include:
"the serious nature of the defendant’s illness and the
deleterious effect of incarceration on the prisoner’s
health"; "the availability of medical services in prison";
"the nature and severity of the crime, the severity of the
sentence, the criminal record of the defendant, [and] the
risk to the public if the defendant is released."
[In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, Expedite
Parole Hearings & Identify Vulnerable Inmates,
___N.J. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op. at 20) (quoting
Priester, 99 N.J. at 135-37).]
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, "the nature of the inmate's
illness and the effect of continued incarceration on his health -- are '[t]he
[p]redicate for relief.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Priester, 99 N.J. at
135). An inmate seeking relief under the rule must present "evidence of both an
'illness or infirmity' -- a physical ailment or weakness -- and the increased risk
of harm incarceration poses to that condition. A generalized fear of contracting
an illness is not enough." Id. at 20-21. The Court further held that the COVID-
19 pandemic constitutes a change in circumstances under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2).
Id. at 21. The Court noted, however, that the rule does not "provide authority
A-4410-19T4
7
for the courts to establish and oversee a broad-based program to release or
furlough inmates in state prison." Id. at 5.
"A motion made pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) is committed to the sound
discretion of the court." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135 (citing State v. Tumminello, 70
N.J. 187, 193 (1976)). We review decisions granting or denying relief under the
rule for abuse of that discretion. Id. at 137. An abuse of discretion occurs when
a trial court makes "findings inconsistent with or unsupported by competent
evidence," utilizes "irrelevant or inappropriate factors," or "fail[s] to consider
controlling legal principles." Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 434 (App.
Div. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). An abuse of
discretion can also be found if the court "fails to take into consideration all
relevant factors and when its decision reflects a clear error in judgment." State
v. C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 255 (App. Div. 2017) (citing State v. Baynes, 148
N.J. 434, 444 (1997)).
It is undisputed that defendant's age and diabetes place him at greater risk
of complications if he contracts COVID-19. It is also clear that defendant is at
A-4410-19T4
8
greater risk of contracting COVID-19 in prison, in part because of the inability
of inmates to socially distance from one another. 1
As recognized by the motion judge, however, defendant committed
murder, the most serious crime. He is eligible for parole in December 2020.
Defendant does not claim "that the medical services unavailable at the
prison would be not only beneficial . . . but are essential to prevent further
deterioration in his health." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135. Nor does he claim his
medical condition is rapidly deteriorating. See Tumminello, 70 N.J. at 193
(holding that medical evidence clearly established that the defendant's condition
was rapidly deteriorating, and his health would be placed in greater danger by
incarceration). Instead, defendant claims that he is vulnerable to serious medical
complications if he contracts COVID-19 due to his underlying conditions.
The record shows defendant is prescribed medication for his underlying
conditions. Notably, defendant does not contend that treatment is ineffective or
that his conditions are not under control. Moreover, defendant did not produce
1
The risks posed by COVID-19 "are amplified in jail settings." In re Request
to Modify Prison Sentences, slip op. at 7. As noted by the Court, "[a]s of June
1, 2020, out of a total population of 15,302 inmates in state prison, 1720 had
tested positive for the virus, about 192 had been hospitalized, and 46 had died.
Up to 737 out of 8008 staff members had also tested positive." Id. at 2.
A-4410-19T4
9
any evidence or expert opinion that his stroke-related right-side paralysis
enhances his risk of serious medical complications from COVID-19.
The record shows that defendant's diabetes and other conditions are
effectively treated through medication administered to him in prison. See
Priester, 99 N.J. at 135-36; State v. Wright, 221 N.J. Super. 123, 127 (App. Div.
1987) (stating the factors to be weighed include "the nature of th[e] illness and
the availability of appropriate medical services in prison to adequately treat or
cope with that illness"). While he claims that he is at enhanced risk of
contracting COVID-19 in prison and suffering serious medical complications if
that occurs, his medical condition is not rapidly deteriorating. Unlike the
defendant in Tumminello, whose worsening diabetes necessitated multiple
amputations and subjected him to the risk of infected ulcerations due to the
inability to maintain sanitary conditions, 70 N.J. at 190, defendant has not
presented any medical evidence that his condition deteriorated during the
months leading up to the motion hearing. Nor has defendant shown that the
DOC is unable to satisfactorily address his medical needs.
Defendant has also not provided evidence relating to the impact of the
prison environment on his diabetes and other conditions. See Wright, 221 N.J.
Super. at 130 (noting that "no expert or other competent evidence was produced
A-4410-19T4
10
to indicate that the progress of the disease would be hastened by defendant's
continued confinement for the relatively short time involved"). Nor has he
established "that the medical services unavailable at the prison would be not
only beneficial . . . but are essential to prevent further deterioration in his
health." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135.
Being diabetic, hypertensive, and asthmatic, with those conditions
controlled by medication administered to the inmate, does not automatically
warrant relief under the rule. "A generalized fear of contracting an illness is not
enough." In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, slip op. at 21. To prevail
on a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion, an inmate must "present evidence of both an
'illness or infirmity' . . . and the increased risk of harm incarceration poses to
that condition." Id. at 20-21.
Relief under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) "must be applied prudently, sparingly,
and cautiously." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135. The motion court properly considered
and balanced the Priester factors. Its findings are supported by the record. We
discern no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
A-4410-19T4
11