DIVINE ALLAH VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)
A-3861-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- Appellant Divine Allah was sentenced in 2005 to 12 years' imprisonment and five years of mandatory parole supervision; he began parole on March 3, 2014.
- As a condition of release he agreed not to purchase, use, possess, distribute or administer narcotics and to complete a drug treatment program.
- Shortly after release he used marijuana repeatedly, tested positive twice, committed infractions, and was discharged from in-patient treatment.
- A probable cause notice and hearing rights were provided; Allah waived the probable cause hearing, declined counsel, and elected an immediate parole-violation hearing where he admitted frequent marijuana use and sought leniency.
- A hearing officer recommended revocation and a 14-month future eligibility term (FET); a two-member Board panel and the full Parole Board affirmed, issuing a written final agency decision.
- Allah appealed claiming the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, that parole failed to address his bereavement-related depression, and that denial of a polygraph violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation and 14‑month FET were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence | Allah: revocation arbitrary, reasons inadequate, not supported by credible record evidence | Parole Bd: decision based on Allah's admissions, treatment failures, and credible record evidence | Court: Board's factual findings and 14‑month FET supported by credible evidence; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether Board violated parolee's due process by failing to offer bereavement/crisis counseling or a specialized drug program | Allah: his marijuana use was tied to depression after his mother's death and parole should have provided/ordered counseling or specialized program | Parole Bd: conditions and alternatives were provided; Allah failed to comply and alternatives already offered failed | Court: Allah received required process and alternatives were available; failure to offer additional services did not render revocation arbitrary |
| Whether denial of a polygraph infringed due process and prejudiced Allah | Allah: denial of polygraph prevented him from clearing allegations | Parole Bd: polygraph not required; Allah had notice, hearing, counsel rights, and could present evidence/witnesses | Court: Due process requirements satisfied; no entitlement to polygraph shown, claim without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (2001) (standard for judicial review of Parole Board decisions: reverse only if arbitrary and capricious)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19 (1998) (review of Parole Board factual findings upheld if supported by sufficient credible evidence)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (Parole Board decision involves discretionary assessments of imponderables)
- Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348 (1973) (Parole Board decision-making entails individualized discretionary appraisals)