Williams v. N.J. State Parole Bd.

255 N.J. 36

298 A.3d 1101

Leander WILLIAMS, Appellant-Appellant,

v.NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent-Respondent.

A-26 September Term 2022

087613

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued April 24, 2023

Decided August 3, 2023

John P. Flynn, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; John P. Flynn, on the brief).

Stephanie Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs, and Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs).

Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Newark, and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).

Katherine Beilin argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; Katherine Beilin and CJ Griffin, on the brief).

JUSTICE FASCIALE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, the legal question is whether the New Jersey State Parole Board may impose a condition that mandates enrollment at a residential treatment program (RTP) for adult inmates who are entitled to administrative parole release under the Earn Your Way Out Act (EYWO Act), N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55b to .55f.

The Parole Board found that it had such authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a) and required that Leander Williams successfully complete a minimum term of 180 days at an RTP upon his parole release. Williams argues that the Parole Board's reliance on N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a) is misplaced. He maintains that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(d) precludes requiring participation in an RTP and that the Parole Board failed to correctly read N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 in its entirety. Williams also contends that, by requiring him to reside at an RTP for a minimum of 180 days after he earned his way out of prison, the Parole Board failed to differentiate between automatic administrative parole release under the EYWO Act and parole in the normal course under the Parole Act of 1979, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.45 to .76. The Appellate Division agreed with the Parole Board that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a) authorized an RTP as a condition of release under the EYWO Act.

We hold that the Parole Board cannot mandate participation in an RTP for inmates administratively paroled under the EYWO Act. Our holding harmonizes the processes for release established by the EYWO Act and the Parole Act with N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59, which permits the Parole Board to impose conditions for inmates released on parole under both Acts. Reading those provisions together, we conclude that although N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 generally authorizes the Parole Board to impose parole conditions on adult inmates who have been administratively released under the EYWO Act, an RTP is not among the conditions that can be imposed in that setting.

We therefore reverse.

I.

A.

Williams has struggled with substance abuse for years. The appellate court noted that he has a long drug-related criminal history. In this case, police charged him with non-violent third- and fourth-degree drug offenses. Williams then pled guilty to those charges and received an aggregate eight-year prison term with four years of parole ineligibility in accordance with his negotiated plea agreement. His primary parole eligibility date was October 21, 2021, which was approximately eight months after the EYWO Act became effective.

During the prison sentence, Williams successfully completed multiple alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs while in the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC). As an inmate convicted of low-level drug offenses who did not commit any prohibited acts or serious disciplinary infractions while imprisoned, Williams not only addressed his longstanding substance abuse problem, but also focused on re-entry into society. Williams therefore participated in meaningful and relevant rehabilitation programs before reaching his primary parole eligibility date.

For example, he successfully completed an 87-day Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) program. Then, while under the custody of the DOC, Williams resided in the Albert M. "Bo" Robinson Assessment and Treatment Center (Bo Robinson) for 187 days. Bo Robinson's Clinical Director confirmed in writing that Williams attended his weekly caseload group sessions, his biweekly individual counseling sessions, and his Relapse Prevention specialty group session. After Williams completed the Bo Robinson program, the DOC transferred him to the Harbor Residential Community Release Program (Harbor House) for further rehabilitation.

While remaining in the DOC's custody, he resided at the Harbor House for 90 days. According to its program counselor, the Harbor House is a "residential treatment and community release program" that "provides treatment and training to individuals [like Williams] who are preparing to re-enter society." Counseling at the Harbor House "focuses on changing criminal and addictive behaviors." At the Harbor House, residents are subjected to random drug testing.

B.

Approximately one month before his primary parole eligibility date, a panel of the Parole Board reviewed Williams’ case to determine whether he was eligible for parole under the EYWO Act. The panel certified that he met the "criteria for administrative parole release." That determination entitled him to automatic administrative parole release under the Act.

At the same time, the panel established conditions for release. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a), the panel imposed twenty-one general parole conditions, which, pursuant to that subsection, were enumerated in Williams’ Certificate of Administrative Release. Williams agreed to abide by those conditions, including, for example, obeying all laws; refraining from the purchase, use, possession, distribution, or administration of any narcotic drug or controlled dangerous substance; consenting to legal law enforcement searches for contraband; and submitting to drug and alcohol testing as directed by his parole officer.

Beyond the twenty-one general parole conditions, the panel also imposed the "special" condition that Williams participate in an RTP for a minimum term of 180 days. It specifically required that Williams successfully complete the Re-Entry Substance Abuse Program (RESAP) at Kintock-Newark. The panel also mandated that Williams comply with an aftercare discharge treatment plan "as developed by KINTOCK-NEWARK." It imposed participation in an RTP even though Williams had earned his way out of prison, in part, by successfully completing rehabilitation programs while serving his aggregate prison sentence.

C.

In October 2021, Williams administratively appealed to the Parole Board and objected to the imposition of the RTP condition. Williams’ counsel argued that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 precluded the panel from requiring an RTP as a condition of his administrative parole release under the EYWO Act because, although parolees under the EYWO Act are supervised and subject to various conditions under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59, mandatory participation in an RTP cannot be one of them. He differentiated the legislatively streamlined, yet rigorous parole process available under the EYWO Act and the general parole process for adult inmates under the Parole Act.

In November 2021, the panel of the Parole Board considered Williams’ administrative appeal. On the one hand, it recognized that he had a "substantial criminal history involving drugs." On the other hand, it acknowledged that Williams had participated in relevant rehabilitation programs while serving his sentence. Although the panel upheld the imposition of residential treatment, it recommended that the Board reduce his mandated "term" of 180 days at Kintock-Newark be reduced to a "term of 90 to 180 days."

Williams’ counsel wrote to the Parole Board, informed it that the panel rejected his administrative appeal, and requested that the Parole Board issue a final decision. He requested that the Parole Board address his argument that, under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(d), the panel cannot parole Williams to an RTP.

D.

In December 2021, the Parole Board issued its final agency decision and upheld the requirement that Williams reside at the RTP. It acknowledged that Williams was entitled to administrative parole release under the EYWO Act. The Parole Board noted that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55d(b) authorizes a panel of the Parole Board to subject inmates paroled administratively to "provisions and conditions" established in accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59. But instead of relying on N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(d), it determined that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a) authorized the panel to impose participation in an RTP. The Parole Board concluded that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(d) was "inapplicable." It is unclear whether the Parole Board accepted the recommendation that Williams’ "term" at the RTP be reduced from a minimum of 180 days to a "term of 90 to 180 days."

E.

Williams appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Parole Board's determination. The Appellate Division acknowledged that for adult inmates released under the EYWO Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55d(b) permits a panel of the Parole Board to establish parole conditions in accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59. Without expressly analyzing subsection N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(d), which is the only part of that statute that explicitly mentions "residential facility," the appellate court agreed substantially with the Parole Board that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59(b)(1)(a) authorized participation in an RTP as a condition for parole of adult inmates under the EYWO Act. Relying on this Court's decision in J.K. v. State Parole Board, 247 N.J. 120, 131-32, 252 A.3d 1052 (2021), the Appellate Division reasoned that the list of parole conditions enumerated...