JOSEPH LIPP VS. ALFRED KANDELLANDREW SCHAEFER VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARDÂ ANDREW SCHAEFER VS. ROBERT CHETIRKIN(L-0519-15, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE, NEW JERSEYSTATE PAROLE BOARD, AND L-8411-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-2261-15T2/A-2851-15T2/A-2852-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Andrew Schaefer and Joseph Lipp were each sentenced to parole supervision for life (PSL) after convictions for endangering the welfare of a child; both were later found to have violated PSL conditions and were returned to custody following NJSPB revocation hearings.
- Schaefer: prior revocation and re-release; in 2015 police found internet-capable devices at his residence; NJSPB revoked PSL and ordered 14 months imprisonment; he appealed the agency decision and challenged the revocation process as depriving him of bail and jury trial.
- Lipp: violated PSL conditions (unapproved residence, travel, alcohol-related conduct); NJSPB revoked PSL and imposed a 12-month return to custody; he filed a declaratory complaint challenging the NJSPB’s authority but the trial court dismissed it; he appealed.
- Core statutory framework: N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 establishes PSL and provides both that PSL violations may be criminalized and that the NJSPB may proceed under parole revocation statutes to return parolees to custody for specified terms.
- The Appellate Division consolidated the appeals and considered whether administrative parole-revocation procedures may be used to adjudicate PSL violations (rather than criminal charging), and whether those procedures satisfy due process and other constitutional protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May NJSPB adjudicate PSL violations via administrative revocation hearings? | Schaefer/Lipp: PSL violation is a new criminal offense under §2C:43-6.4(d); therefore they must be criminally charged with attendant rights (bail, jury trial). | State/NJSPB: Statutory text and Parole Act authorize administrative revocation and return to custody; the State may choose administrative process. | Held: NJSPB may constitutionally adjudicate PSL violations via revocation hearings; Morrissey protections suffice and administrative process is authorized by statute. |
| Is delegation (to Parole Board/Division) to impose additional imprisonment under §2C:43-6.4(d) unconstitutional? | Plaintiffs: Legislative grant impermissibly delegates sentencing power, violating separation of powers. | Defendants: Statute and Parole Act delineate revocation authority; PSL is part of original sentence and Board’s revocation implements that sentence. | Held: Rejected challenge — statutory scheme valid; Board’s revocation is an administrative implementation of PSL, not an unconstitutional delegation. |
| Do parole revocations here violate Apprendi / require jury findings or greater criminal-procedure protections? | Plaintiffs: Return to custody after revocation imposes imprisonment without jury findings, implicating Apprendi and right to jury. | Defendants: PSL is part of the original sentence; re-incarceration after violation does not increase the original sentence by facts requiring a jury under Apprendi. | Held: Apprendi inapplicable; PSL was imposed at sentencing and revocation enforces conditional liberty under Morrissey. |
| Were NJSPB findings arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported (Hobson claim)? | Schaefer: Agency failed to make required findings and decision lacked sufficient evidentiary support. | NJSPB: Hearing officer provided process, evidence (devices, admissions, PIN) supports revocation. | Held: Agency decision supported by sufficient credible evidence and not arbitrary or capricious; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole revocation is administrative, not a criminal prosecution; sets due process minimums for revocation hearings)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (Apprendi principles applied in federal sentencing context)
- Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 435 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2014) (discusses procedural protections statutory/regulatory framework for parole revocation)
- State v. Perez, 220 N.J. 423 (N.J. 2015) (interprets PSL statutory scheme and acknowledges State may treat violations as parole revocations)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (N.J. 2001) (standard of review for parole board discretionary decisions)
- N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192 (N.J. 1983) (defining due process protections under state constitution for parole revocation hearings)