DANIEL CARABALLO VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)
A-4451-15T1
N.J. Super. App. Div. UJun 28, 2017Background
- In 1985 appellant Daniel Caraballo was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses and sentenced to life with a 30-year mandatory minimum parole ineligibility period.
- Caraballo became parole-eligible on August 29, 2014; a two-member Parole Board panel denied parole and referred him to a three-member panel to set a future eligibility term (FET).
- The panel cited: prior convictions (including possession of stolen property and intent to commit robbery), an escalating criminal record, failure of prior community supervision to deter crime, 26 disciplinary infractions in prison (7 serious), insufficient rehabilitation (poor insight, minimizing behavior, untreated substance abuse), and a risk score of 29 (medium risk).
- The panel concluded Caraballo remained a substantial threat to public safety and imposed a 96-month FET under N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.21(d); credits could reduce the effective date to a projected January 2019.
- The full Parole Board upheld the denial and 96-month FET on March 23, 2016. Caraballo appealed pro se arguing the denial lacked evidentiary support, the Board relied on reduced-severity offenses improperly, and the FET was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether record supports finding Caraballo would reoffend if released | Caraballo: record does not support that he would commit another crime | Parole Board: multiple objective factors (discipline, prior record, risk score, lack of rehabilitation) show substantial threat | Court: affirmed — credible evidence supports Board's finding |
| Whether Board improperly relied on reduced-severity offenses | Caraballo: Board gave undue weight to offenses whose severity was reduced | Board: considered full criminal history and rehabilitative conduct within regulatory framework | Court: affirmed — no arbitrary reliance found |
| Whether 96-month FET was excessive | Caraballo: FET should be reduced as excessive | Board: ordinary FET (27 months) was inappropriate due to lack of progress; longer FET justified under regulation | Court: affirmed — 96-month FET not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Standard of review for Parole Board decisions | Caraballo: sought de novo scrutiny of Board's conclusions | Board: decisions are discretionary and entitled to deference; must be supported by credible evidence | Court: applied deferential standard, reversing only for arbitrary/capricious action; upheld Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175 (App. Div.) (describes deferential, limited review of Parole Board decisions)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (Parole Board decisions are individualized discretionary appraisals)
- McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div.) (agency actions entitled to strong presumption of reasonableness; upholding substantial FETs when supported by record)