STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IZAIYAH GRISSOM (17-11-3140, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4503-19T4
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    IZAIYAH GRISSOM,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _______________________
    Submitted November 2, 2020 – Decided December 2, 2020
    Before Judges Fasciale and Susswein.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 17-11-3140.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant (Earnest G. Ianetti, Designated Counsel, on
    the brief).
    Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
    Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat,
    Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
    Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant, Izaiyah Grissom, appeals from an August 3, 2020 order
    denying his release under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Along with entering that order, Judge Michael Ravin also rendered a
    comprehensive twelve-page written opinion. We affirm.
    Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit theft. In exchange for
    defendant's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss robbery and related weapons
    charges. Judge Ravin sentenced defendant to probation. Thereafter, defendant
    was arrested and charged with assault, theft, and obstructing the administration
    of law. He also failed to cooperate in substance abuse testing and counseling as
    directed by his probation officer.    Accordingly, Judge Ravin revoked his
    probation and re-sentenced defendant to a four-year prison term. Defendant
    becomes eligible for parole in February 2021.
    Defendant raises the following contentions for our consideration:
    POINT I
    THE MOTION JUDGE'S      FINDING THAT
    DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S HEALTH IS NOT
    RAPIDLY DETERIORATING DOES NOT JUSTIFY
    DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT RELEASE
    TO PARTICIPATE IN AN IN-PATIENT DRUG
    REHABILITATION PROGRAM.
    POINT II
    REQUIRING   DEFENDANT-APPELLANT  TO
    SERVE THE REMAINING TWO YEARS OF HIS
    A-4503-19T4
    2
    SENTENCE IN ISOLATION VIOLATES THE
    EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
    CLAUSE AND THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
    CLAUSE OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION,
    ART. I, ¶ 12.
    We disagree with defendant's arguments and affirm substantially for the
    reasons set forth in Judge Ravin's thorough and thoughtful written opinion. We
    add the following remarks.
    An inmate seeking release from custody under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) has the
    burden of establishing the grounds for release by making two showings. First,
    the inmate must establish that a "change of circumstances" has led to a "severe
    depreciation" of his or her health since the time of sentencing. State v. Wright,
    
    221 N.J. Super. 123
    , 127 (App. Div. 1987).             Second, the inmate must
    demonstrate that "medical services unavailable at the prison" are "essential to
    prevent further deterioration" of [the inmate's] health." State v. Priester, 
    99 N.J. 123
    , 135 (1985).
    Our Supreme Court has recognized that "the worldwide pandemic that has
    afflicted New Jersey and its prison system amounts to a change in circumstances
    under the Rule." In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, Expedite Parole
    Hearings, and Identify Vulnerable Prisoners, 
    242 N.J. 357
    , 379 (2020).
    Nonetheless, "the nature of the inmate's illness and the effect of continued
    A-4503-19T4
    3
    incarceration on his health" continue to remain the necessary "predicate for
    relief" under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2).
    Ibid. (quoting Priester, 99
    N.J. at 135).
    Furthermore, disposition of a motion under this Rule is "an extension of the
    sentencing power," and "is committed to the sound discretion of the court."
    
    Priester, 99 N.J. at 135
    . A court abuses its discretion when it relies on an
    impermissible basis, considers irrelevant factors, or makes a clear error in
    judgment. See State v. S.N., 
    231 N.J. 497
    , 500 (2018).
    Judge Ravin found that defendant's medical records support his claim that
    he suffers from asthma and acknowledged that persons with moderate to severe
    asthma are at higher risk of severe illness due to COVID-19.             The judge
    nonetheless determined that defendant failed to establish a basis for release,
    finding no indication that defendant has been exposed to the virus or that he is
    in imminent danger of deteriorating health. The judge also noted that defendant
    is presently separated from the general prison population for his protection.
    Furthermore, the judge found that defendant failed to meet his burden of
    showing that the medical services he sought outside of the prison would be
    "essential to prevent further deterioration of his health." 
    Priester, 99 N.J. at 135
    .
    Finally, Judge Ravin considered the circumstances of the offense and
    defendant's conduct that resulted in revocation of his probation and re -
    A-4503-19T4
    4
    sentencing. Defendant's failure to abide by the conditions of his probation —
    including community service and cooperation with substance abuse evaluation
    and counseling—weighed heavily against granting the relief he seeks.
    In sum, the record clearly shows that Judge Ravin carefully considered
    defendant's medical records and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.
    In view of our deferential standard of review, we see no reason to disturb the
    trial court's well-articulated findings.
    Defendant also contends, for the first time on appeal, that requiring him
    to serve the remainder of his custodial sentence in "isolation" violates the Eighth
    Amendment. This lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion.
    R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
    Affirmed.
    A-4503-19T4
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4503-19T4

Filed Date: 12/2/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/2/2020