RONALD LONG VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)
A-5196-14T3
N.J. Super. App. Div. USep 8, 2017Background
- Ronald Long, serving life sentence (murder conviction with concurrent long aggregate terms), became parole-eligible in May 2014 after decades in custody.
- A two-member Parole Board panel denied parole in March 2014, finding a substantial likelihood Long would commit a new crime if released, and referred the matter to a three-member panel to set a future eligibility term (FET).
- A three-member panel in July 2014 (amended May 2015) set a 96-month FET, concluding Long had not shown satisfactory rehabilitative progress, minimized his role in offenses, lacked insight, and committed an in‑custody assault decades earlier.
- The Board issued a final agency decision (May 27, 2015) affirming the two- and three-member panels, finding the record (including sentencing materials) supported denial and imposition of the 96‑month FET and rejecting Long’s procedural and bias claims.
- Long appealed pro se, arguing (1) denial of a pre-sentence report (PSR) denied him a fair hearing, (2) parole denial was improper because he maintains innocence, (3) Board relied on misleading/false facts, and (4) panel members violated professional conduct rules or were biased.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, applying the narrow standard of review for parole decisions and finding Board actions supported by substantial credible evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of a pre-sentence report (PSR) denied Long a fair parole hearing | Long: Board lacked jurisdiction/a fair hearing because no PSR was prepared; PSR omission violated law and regs | Board: Record included sentencing materials and other documentation; PSR absence was known earlier and is time-barred; panels considered all relevant material | Held: No due-process violation; PSR absence immaterial and issue time-barred; Board considered sufficient record evidence |
| Whether denial based on Long’s continued assertion of innocence was improper | Long: Denial relied on his refusal to admit guilt and trial sufficiency, which is arbitrary when he professes innocence | Board: Consideration of denial of responsibility is legitimate evidence of lack of insight and recidivism risk | Held: Board may consider Long’s refusal to accept responsibility; reliance not arbitrary |
| Whether Board relied on misleading, exaggerated, or false facts or showed bias/professional misconduct | Long: Panel relied on false or exaggerated facts and violated professional code; showed bias | Board: Panels reconsidered and amended decisions; record shows consideration of mitigating factors; no evidence of bias; relied on credible documentation | Held: No showing of bias or improper process; decisions supported by record; misconduct claim rejected |
| Whether 96‑month FET was arbitrary or unsupported | Long: FET excessive and not justified by record | Board: FET authorized where standard guideline inappropriate due to lack of rehabilitative progress; supported by comprehensive record review | Held: FET affirmed as supported by substantial credible evidence and within Board discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213 (2016) (parole board is the agency charged with parole fitness determinations)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (2001) (parole decisions involve discretionary assessment of imponderables; Board has broad but not unlimited discretion)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 154 N.J. 19 (1998) (parole fitness focuses on likelihood of future criminal activity)
- In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (2011) (parole decisions will not be disturbed unless arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (recognizing parole decision involves discretionary assessment and due-process limits)
- Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 336 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000) (parole review standards and focus on future dangerousness)
- Long v. State, 119 N.J. 439 (1990) (affirming Long’s convictions; cited for the record of final conviction)