Parole Conditions (Part 2)

by | Mar 20, 2024 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Parole Board cannot mandate participation in an RTP for inmates administratively paroled under the EYWO Act. 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.

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53(a) details the process for release under the Parole Act. Under that provision, the Parole Board retains substantial discretion to deny parole if it finds the State makes a showing of lack of cooperation or a reasonable expectation of a future violation of parole conditions imposed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59. The process governing release under the EYWO Act, which took effect on February 1, 2021, is different. “Administrative parole release” means the release of an adult inmate who has met the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55d(a). In this streamlined parole process, parole-eligible inmates who satisfy the criteria must automatically be released by the Board. According to a press release, the EYWO Act “places a greater focus on reentry, allowing us to reduce recidivism and improve individuals’ ability to integrate back into their communities.” Like the Parole Act release provision, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55d(b) authorizes the imposition of parole conditions via reference to the entirety of N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59.

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59, which governs the imposition of parole conditions, has multiple subsections. Subsection (b)(1)(a) lists various mandatory and discretionary parole conditions. The Parole Board relies on the part of subsection (b)(1)(a) devoted to discretionary conditions as its sole authority to impose an RTP on Williams. That part is a non-exhaustive list stating that the Board member or panel certifying release “may impose any other specific conditions of parole deemed reasonable in order to reduce the likelihood of recurrence of criminal or delinquent behavior, including a requirement that the parolee comply with the Internet access conditions,” and “such special conditions may include, among other things, a requirement that the parolee make full or partial restitution”; “that the parolee have no contact with the victim”; and “that the person shall not own or possess an animal for an unlawful purpose or to interfere in the performance of duties by a parole officer.” Although RTPs are not among the conditions mentioned in subsection (b)(1)(a) of N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59, they are directly addressed in subsection (d) of that statute, which provides that the Board “may parole an inmate to any residential facility funded in whole or in part by the State if the inmate would not otherwise be released pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.53 without such placement.”

In mates subject to the parole process do not enjoy the protections of criminal defendants. The principal reason is that parolees have already been convicted while defendants are presumed to be not guilty.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very fortunate to find Attorney Fred Sisto for my legal case in Ocean County, NJ. He was thoroughly versed in the law and kept me informed at all times. When it came time for my court date, he showed up early and clearly advised me of all possible options. I could not be happier with the outcome Fred was able to negotiate for me. I highly recommend him!
Kelly L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is the best! He is extremely professional and kept constant contact so I was always in the loop. My charges got dismissed and I couldn't be happier. Would highly recommend!
Ryan T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The Best To Ever Do It :)
Sergio A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Spot on, 100%
Earl M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very knowledgeable within every aspect of the law. Highly recommend his talent for your criminal defense.
Will S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Muy buen abogado lo rrecomiendo!!
Victor N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a good lawyer, he is really young yet made me feel confident that my lawful rights were being protected, and investigated all avenues when there was potential they weren't. He is very knowledgeable, and offered great peace of mind in such a distressing situation. I always felt like he had my back throughout the whole process, supporting aspects to my case that didn't even fall within his scope. I would highly recommend Fred.
Amy L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I think Fred's alerts are a great service to his audience and a very smart marketing tool. Keep up the good work, Fred.
Charles O
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional and knowledgeable, also awesome communication and very down to earth guy. Would highly recommend to anyone. Matter was resolved with the best possible outcome that I could've hoped.
Mike A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C