ANTONIO SANCHEZ VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), A-2485-15T3

Background:

In 1984 Sanchez, while on probation, fatally shot Enrico Castillo after a dispute; convicted of first-degree murder and related weapons offenses, sentenced to life with a 30-year mandatory term; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Long institutional record at Southwoods State Prison: 84 infractions (39 serious) including assaults, weapon possession, threats, and fighting; limited infractions since 2009 but many serious incidents earlier.
Sanchez became parole-eligible in 2014. A two-member parole panel denied parole based on criminal history, poor institutional adjustment, lack of insight, insufficient problem resolution, inadequate parole plan, and a medium risk assessment; they referred the case to a three-member panel to set a future eligibility term (FET) outside guidelines.
A three-member panel imposed a 120-month FET (departing from the 27-month presumptive FET for murder) citing a substantial likelihood of recidivism and lack of rehabilitative progress; the full Parole Board affirmed after recusal of the original panel members from the Board-level decision.
Sanchez appealed, arguing (1) he had served the punitive portion and is unlikely to reoffend so parole denial was improper, (2) the 120-month FET was excessive, and (3) certain panel members should have been disqualified under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-1.5(b).

Issues:

Issue	Sanchez's Argument	Parole Board's Argument	Held
Whether denial of parole was proper under pre-1997 "substantial likelihood" standard	Sanchez: He’d served punitive portion and poses no substantial likelihood of reoffending	Board: Multiple factors (crime facts, lack of insight, serious institutional infractions, inadequate plan) support a finding of substantial likelihood of reoffense	Court: Affirmed; Board’s factual prediction supported by substantial credible evidence and entitled to deference
Whether 120-month FET (departure from 27-month guideline) was permissible	Sanchez: 120 months is clearly inappropriate and excessive	Board: Regulation permits departure when inmate shows insufficient progress reducing likelihood of future criminal behavior; Sanchez’s lack of insight and violent infractions justify longer FET	Court: Affirmed; departure valid under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(d) given risk factors
Whether Board mischaracterized Sanchez’s prior criminal record	Sanchez: He had no adult or juvenile record; panels erred in listing prior crimes	Board: Panels corrected earlier errors, treated prior record as minimal, and focused on lack of insight and institutional behavior	Court: Affirmed; any initial miscitation was corrected and was not material to outcome
Whether panel members violated N.J.A.C. 10A:71-1.5(b) by participating in both initial and FET panels	Sanchez: Haaf and Henderson served on both the two-member and three-member panels, so they were barred from participating further	Board: Rule bars a member from reviewing his own initial decision on appeal, but did not bar participation in a separate FET determination; all three recused from the Board-level review of the two-member parole denial	Court: Affirmed; regulation properly read and applied—no violation

Key Cases Cited

Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213 (N.J. 2016) (Parole Board’s highly predictive discretionary appraisals entitled to deference)
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (N.J. 2001) (standard of review for parole decisions; courts defer to administrative findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 2002) (Board may impose lengthy FETs within its discretion based on recidivism risk)
Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175 (App. Div. 2004) (parole regulation factors are non-exhaustive and may be considered in release decisions)
State v. Sanchez, 224 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 1988) (affirming Sanchez’s underlying conviction)