CARLOS MOORE VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), A-4822-15T1

Carlos Moore was released on parole after serving an aggregate term for multiple violent and weapons offenses under the No Early Release Act; parole included special conditions (no contact with L.A., no contact with known Bloods members, avoid establishments whose primary purpose is selling alcohol).
After a domestic incident on April 14, 2014, the Board added a no-contact special condition as to L.A.
Two alleged violations arose: a Bloods gang member found in Moore’s home (April 15, 2014) and an assault of L.A. at Caesars Atlantic City (January 27, 2015); a parole warrant issued the next day.
At probable cause and revocation hearings Moore (pro se) admitted contact with L.A. and being in the casino bar (claimed merely walking through); the Bloods-contact charge was later withdrawn at the revocation hearing.
The Board revoked Moore’s parole and imposed a 12‑month future eligibility term (FET); the full Board affirmed on administrative appeal. Moore appealed to the Appellate Division asserting procedural and due process defects and insufficient evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation was supported by clear and convincing evidence	Moore: Board lacked sufficient evidence; he only "walked through" the casino bar and denied violating conditions	Board: Moore admitted contact with L.A. and presence in casino bar; record supports violations	Affirmed — violations established by clear and convincing evidence
Whether imposition of no‑contact condition violated due process	Moore: special condition was imposed after domestic dispute without criminal charge and without due process	Board: condition imposed to prevent further criminal behavior; Moore did not appeal its imposition	Affirmed — no due process violation in imposing the special condition
Whether revocation hearing complied with Morrissey protections	Moore: denied procedural due process at hearings	Board: provided written notice, disclosure, opportunity to be heard, confrontation, neutral body, and written reasons	Affirmed — Morrissey requirements satisfied
Whether administrative appeal decision was untimely under regulation	Moore: Board failed to decide appeal within 90 days	Board: decision came 15 days late but delay caused no prejudice	Affirmed — procedural delay noted but harmless

Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (standard for appellate review of administrative decisions)
Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556 (1963) (administrative review principles)
In re Registrant R.F., 317 N.J. Super. 379 (App. Div. 1998) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228 (1993) (clear and convincing evidence standard)
In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67 (1993) (description of clear, direct, weighty, and convincing proof)
In re Boardwalk Regency Casino License Application, 180 N.J. Super. 324 (App. Div. 1981) (evidentiary standard language on conviction without hesitancy)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation procedural due process protections)