Sundiata Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board(075308)
130 A.3d 1228
N.J.2016Background
- Sundiata Acoli, convicted of a 1973 murder and other offenses, received aggregate sentence of life plus 24–30 years; he became parole-eligible in 2010 after decades in custody.
- A two-member Parole Board panel interviewed Acoli, denied parole, and a three-member panel set a 120-month future eligibility term; Acoli administratively appealed to the full Parole Board.
- The full Parole Board (excluding prior panel members) conducted a paper review, affirmed denial, and issued a nine-page final agency decision denying parole.
- The Appellate Division reversed as arbitrary and capricious and ordered the Board to set conditions for Acoli’s immediate parole release.
- The Parole Board sought review, arguing N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(f) requires a full-board hearing before certifying parole for murder inmates; the Supreme Court granted certification and stayed the Appellate Division’s order.
- The Supreme Court held the Appellate Division acted prematurely and remanded for a full Parole Board hearing (with opportunity for victims to be heard) before any judicially ordered parole for a murder inmate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Appellate Division could order parole directly after finding Board denial arbitrary | Acoli: Appellate Division properly granted parole because Board’s denial was arbitrary and final agency decision allowed judicial correction | Parole Board: Appellate Division should have remanded for a full Parole Board hearing before any release of a murder inmate | Court: Appellate Division acted prematurely; remand to full Board for in-person hearing required before parole release |
| Interpretation of N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(f) — does it apply only when a panel recommends parole? | Acoli/ACLU: Plain text limits (f) to cases where a panel recommends parole; (f) not triggered after a panel denial | Board: (f) reflects legislative intent that no murder inmate be paroled without full-board hearing; (f) implicated when judicial intervention seeks parole | Court: Statute ambiguous in context; legislative history and purpose support broader reading favoring full-board hearing before release of murder inmates |
| Whether a paper review by full Board on appeal substitutes for full in-person hearing required by (f) | Acoli: Paper review satisfies appellate-review process; (f) not applicable here | Board: Paper review is not equivalent; full Board should personally examine murder inmate before certifying parole and victims must be afforded right to appear | Court: Paper review is not a substitute; remand for full, in-person hearing is required prior to parole |
| Victims’ participation rights — must victims be afforded in-person opportunity before full Board certifies parole? | Acoli/ACLU: Victim input already available in panel hearing and written submissions; (f) victims’ in-person right limited to (f) triggered cases | Board: (f)’s 1993 amendment shows Legislature intended victims/families to be notified and have in-person or written/videotaped opportunity before full-board hearing for murder inmates | Court: (f)’s victims’ provisions would be effectively nullified by allowing release after only paper review; remand preserves victims’ opportunity to be heard at full hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Hawley, 98 N.J. 108 (parole board is the agency charged with deciding parole suitability)
- Beckworth v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348 (parole board makes highly predictive, individualized discretionary appraisals)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (parole decision involves predictive, imprecise judgments)
- Trantino v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 166 N.J. 113 (courts may order parole when agency acts arbitrarily)
- US Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187 (deference to agency interpretation when statute is reasonably susceptible to multiple meanings)
- Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util. Co., 212 N.J. 576 (statutory construction should avoid rendering language superfluous)
- Perez v. Zagami, 218 N.J. 202 (statutory construction requires divining Legislature’s intent)
- In re Election Law Enf't Comm’n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254 (defer to agency interpretations within its authority)
- State in Interest of K.O., 217 N.J. 83 (effort should be made to avoid rendering any statutory part superfluous)