LORENZO CARTER VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), A-1274-15T1

Background

In 1980 Carter allegedly shot two people, killing one; he fled and remained a fugitive for ~30 years; arrested in 2010 and pled guilty in 2012 to second-degree aggravated manslaughter and aggravated assault.
Sentences: 12 years for manslaughter, consecutive 8 years for assault.
Carter first became parole-eligible in February 2015 and applied for release.
A two-member Parole Board panel denied parole (Dec. 8, 2014) and referred the case to a three-member panel, which set a 120-month future eligibility term (FET).
The full Parole Board affirmed the denial and 120-month FET on administrative review (Oct. 22, 2015).
Carter appealed pro se, arguing the FET lacked substantial credible evidence and was arbitrary, biased, and capricious.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Parole Board's denial of parole and imposition of a 120-month FET was supported by substantial credible evidence	Carter: Board failed to consider all evidence; decision unsupported by sufficient, credible evidence	Board: Considered relevant factors (criminal history, seriousness, lack of deterrence, parole plan, hearing responses, risk assessment) and applied policy	Affirmed: Board decision supported by substantial credible evidence and entitled to deference
Whether the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or with bias	Carter: Decision was arbitrary, capricious and inherently biased; requests vacatur and new hearing	Board: Procedures and policies followed; Carter pointed to no specific policy violation; both positive and negative factors were considered	Affirmed: No evidence of arbitrariness, caprice, or procedural violation
Whether the Board failed to consider positive factors (program participation, infractions-free status)	Carter: Implies Board ignored mitigating evidence	Board: Explicitly considered GED pursuit, program enrollment attempts, and infraction-free record but found other factors outweighed them	Affirmed: Board considered positives but reasonably relied on negative factors
Whether the Board applied correct regulatory criteria	Carter: Implied improper application or omission of policy	Board: Applied N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11 factors and used risk assessment and hearing responses	Affirmed: Board applied proper factors and procedures

Key Cases Cited

Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213 (discussing Parole Board authority and deference to parole determinations)
Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (parole decisions involve discretionary assessments of multiple imponderables)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (review standard: Board decisions upheld unless arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (parole decisionmaking involves discretionary assessments and due deference to parole authorities)