The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2081-23
ZAKEE MARTIN,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
___________________
Argued March 18, 2025 – Decided July 17, 2025
Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Augostini.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Clayton D. Harvey argued the cause for appellant
(Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, attorneys;
Clayton D. Harvey, on the briefs).
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C.
Josephson, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Zakee Martin appeals from the final agency decision by the
New Jersey State Parole Board (Board) revoking his parole and establishing a
twelve-month future eligibility term (FET). We have carefully reviewed the
record in view of the governing legal principles for this appeal, including the
deference owed to an administrative agency acting within the scope of its
expertise. We affirm the Board's findings and its final order revoking parole
and establishing a FET.
We derive the following facts from the record. On July 21, 2018, Martin
was arrested and charged with two counts of third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A.
2C:18-2(a)(1); two counts of third-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
3(a); a disorderly persons offense of criminal trespass, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(a); and
a disorderly persons of theft by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a). After
Martin's release, he was arrested on August 5, 2019, and subsequently charged
with third-degree burglary, two counts a disorderly persons offense of criminal
trespass, and a disorderly persons offense of theft by unlawful taking.
On May 15, 2020, Martin pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary and the
three disorderly persons offenses: two counts of criminal trespass and one count
of unlawful taking. On June 5, 2020, Martin was sentenced to five years'
probation to complete Recovery Court and concurrent to his disorderly persons
A-2081-23
2
offenses. Martin violated the terms of this probation and on June 20, 2020, and
he was sentenced to a four-year prison term.
On December 27, 2022, Martin was subsequently administratively
released on discretionary parole supervision through the Earn Your Way Out
Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55(b) to (f). 1 He agreed to abide by the general
conditions of his release, which required that he (1) report in person as instructed
by the District Parole Supervisor or designated representative, (2) reside
overnight at a residence approved by the assigned parole officer, and (3) obtain
permission of the assigned parole officer prior to any change of residence of
twenty-four hours or more. Martin also agreed to the special condition that he
enroll in, comply with the conditions of, and successfully complete an out -
patient alcohol counseling program as approved by the District Parole
Supervisor.
1
The statute permits eligible inmates to be released on administrative parole at
the time of primary or subsequent parole eligibility provided that the inmate has
not been convicted of or serving a sentence imposed for any exclusionary crimes
in (1) N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(b), Registration Law for Sex Offenders; (2) N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2, No Early Release Act; (3) N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c) or (g), Graves Act;
and (4) N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26, Sexually Violent Predator Act. Eligibility is also
determined by whether an inmate has not committed any serious disciplinary
infraction within the previous two years from his or her parole eligibility date,
and whether the inmate has completed relevant rehabilitation programs as
determined by the Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board.
N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.55d(a).
A-2081-23
3
Pursuant to his special condition on parole, Martin enrolled in the Greater
Essex Counseling Program (Greater Essex Program) for substance abuse.
During his six-week enrollment, Martin successfully passed all administered
drug tests and attended the Greater Essex Program. Martin also resided at an
approved residence and was present at the residence when home visits were
conducted by his parole officer.
Martin took daily medication to treat his schizophrenia and bipolar
disorders until he ran out of his medication. In mid-February 2023, he contacted
his peer counselor through the Rutgers University Supporting Path to Recovery
Program to obtain a refill. Martin was instructed to request a refill at the
pharmacy; however, the pharmacy did not have the medication. The
prescription was not refilled, and Martin's whereabouts were unknown.
Thereafter, Parole Officer Peter Degnan was informed that Martin had not
resided at the approved residence since February 12, 2023. Martin had not
obtained approval to change his residence as required by his parole conditions.
Further, on February 15, 2023, Martin failed to report in person to the parole
office. The next day, Martin was unsuccessfully discharged from the Greater
Essex Program for failing to complete the outpatient program. That same day,
Martin was declared missing, and the Division of Parole issued an arrest warrant
A-2081-23
4
for his parole violation. On February 27, 2023, Martin surrendered to the police
after learning of the warrant. He was subsequently incarcerated and resumed
taking his medication.
Martin elected to have a probable cause hearing, waiving his right to
counsel. The hearing was conducted on March 28, 2023, via video
teleconference. Degnan testified about Martin's acknowledgement of his parole
conditions and detailed his instances of noncompliance.
Martin pleaded guilty to each of the violations, admitted to relapsing as
an alcoholic, and requested placement in an in-patient program. After
considering all evidence, the hearing officer sustained the violations based on
Martin's admission of guilt and the evidence in the record. The hearing officer
found Martin's numerous violations were "serious" and revocation was
"desirable." The hearing officer further determined Martin was a "flight risk"
and a "danger to the community" and was "not amenable to community
supervision at [that] time."
A final revocation hearing was conducted on May 31, 2023. Martin was
represented by counsel at the hearing. The testimony provided by both Degnan
and Martin was consistent with that presented at the earlier hearing. Martin also
testified that he had not committed any new offenses while on parole and never
A-2081-23
5
had a positive drug test while attending the Greater Essex Program. Martin,
however, further testified that the violations resulted from the failure to take his
medication but affirmed that now that he has resumed taking it, he would be able
to meet his parole conditions if released. He requested that his parole be
continued under a program that would ensure compliance with his medication.
The hearing officer found, based on the record and by clear and
convincing evidence, that Martin seriously violated the conditions of his parole.
The hearing officer restated Martin was a flight risk and a danger to the
community and was not amenable to community supervision at that time. The
hearing officer recommended Martin's parole be revoked and a twelve-month
parole eligibility term be imposed.
In the July 26, 2023 written decision, the two-member Board panel
accepted the hearing officer's findings and determined that Martin's numerous
violations were serious. The Board panel revoked Martin's parole supervision
status and ordered him to serve a twelve-month FET. Martin administratively
appealed the Board panel's determination.
On January 31, 2024, the full Board affirmed the two-member panel's
decision, finding the two-member panel had considered all the relevant facts and
their decision was fully supported by the record. The Board concurred with the
A-2081-23
6
panel's decision that Martin "ha[d] seriously violated the conditions of his parole
and revocation [was] desirable." This appeal followed.
On appeal, Martin contends that the Board failed to demonstrate that
revocation of his parole was desirable. We reject Martin's argument that the
Board's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable because it failed to demonstrate
that revocation of the parole was warranted. We conclude that the Board
correctly determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that Martin violated the
conditions of his parole supervision, thus warranting revocation of parole and
the imposition of a twelve-month FET.
Our review of a Parole "Board's decision is deferential in light of its
expertise in the specialized area of parole supervision[.]" J.I. v. N.J. State Parole
Bd., 228 N.J 204, 230 (2017). "Appellate review of parole determinations
focuses upon whether the factual findings made by the [Parole] . . . Board could
reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record."
Perry v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 459 N.J. Super. 186, 193 (App. Div. 2019)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Board decisions are "accorded a strong
presumption of reasonableness." McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002).
A-2081-23
7
Thus, "[w]e will reverse a decision of the Board only if the [appellant]
shows that the decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, lacked credible support
in the record, or violated legislative policies." K.G. v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
458 N.J. Super. 1, 30 (App. Div. 2019). Revocations of parole must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.12(c)(1);
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.15(c). "Clear and convincing evidence" is that upon "which
the trier of fact can rest a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the
allegations sought to be established." In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330-
31 (2001) (citations omitted).
Applying these well-established principles, we discern no basis to
overturn the Board's final decision. The Board properly applied the standard in
assessing Martin's numerous parole violations. By any measure, Martin's parole
violations were serious. Martin admitted that he failed to abide by the general
and specific parole conditions. Thus, we conclude the decision to revoke
Martin's parole and impose the twelve-month FET was not arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-2081-23
8