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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0152-24
MICHAEL SANDERS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE
BOARD,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted October 29, 2025 – Decided December 19, 2025
Before Judges Gummer and Paganelli.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Laura B. Lasota, Deputy Public Defender II,
of counsel and on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Andrew Spevack, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Michael Sanders appeals from the final agency decision of the New Jersey
State Parole Board (Parole Board) revoking his parole supervision for life (PSL)
status and sentencing him to a sixteen-month term of incarceration. Because we
conclude Sanders fails to establish the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, we affirm.
We glean the facts and procedural history from the Parole Board record.
In December 2011, Sanders pleaded guilty to: second-degree sexual assault,
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4); fourth-degree criminal sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-
3(b); and third-degree endangering the welfare of a fourteen-year-old female,
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). In April 2012, he was sentenced to prison for five years
flat on the second and third-degree crimes and eighteen months on the fourth-
degree crime to run concurrently to the five-year term. He was also sentenced
to PSL for all crimes.
Sanders completed his term of incarceration in November 2014. Since his
release, Sanders's PSL "status ha[d] been revoked on two . . . occasions and
continued on three . . . occasions." In June 2023, Sanders was again continued
on PSL subject to the following conditions:
PSL General Condition #13 — Refrain from the
unlawful purchase, use, possession, distribution, or
administration of the following, which shall not apply
A-0152-24
2
to a controlled dangerous substance [(CDS)] prescribed
by a physician:
i. Any narcotic drug, [CDS] , or controlled
substance analog as defined at N.J.S.A.
2C:35-2 or imitation [CDS] or imitation
controlled dangerous analog as defined at
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-11, other than possession
of marijuana or hashish in violation of
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10.a(3), and distribution of
marijuana or hashish in violation of
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.b(12); or
ii. Any paraphernalia as defined at
N.J.S.A. 2C:36-1 related to such
substances, other than if used, or intended
to be used, for marijuana or hashish.
PSL Special Condition — Comply with the conditions
of and successfully complete the Program for Returning
Offenders with Mental Illness Safely and Effectively
(PROMISE) at [Volunteers of America (VOA)] Liberty
for 90 to 180 days.
[(Capitalization modified).]
As of August 2023, Sanders had completed the treatment phase of
PROMISE at the VOA. However, on August 24, 2023, he was allegedly "found
in possession of synthetic cannabinoids (K2) upon his return to the [VOA] from
a dental visit." Because the infraction was considered serious, Sanders was
discharged from the program. A parole warrant was issued, and Sanders was
arrested.
A-0152-24
3
On November 8, 2023, a hearing officer from the Parole Board District
Office conducted a probable cause hearing. The Division of Parole presented
testimony from Senior Parole Officer Jennifer Pfeffer and Senior Parole Officer
Michael Sass. Officer Pfeffer testified that she had observed the seized item "to
be a green vegetative sweet-smelling substance, that, based on her training and
experience," she was able to identify as K2. Further, the testimony revealed that
Sanders admitted, to Officers Pfeffer and Sass, that he had brought K2 to the
facility. The VOA discharge summary was entered into evidence. The
testimony also revealed the item seized had not been tested. The hearing officer
found:
Probable cause . . . exists to believe that,
two[-]and[-]a[-]half months after being continued to
. . . PROMISE, [Sanders] was discharged after
attempting to smuggle K2 or imitation K2 into the
program.
Probable cause further exists to believe that
[Sanders]'s violations are serious and that revocation is
desirable. This hearing officer is of the opinion that
subject poses a danger to the public safety and should
be continued in custody pending the scheduling of a[]
F[inal] R[evocation] H[earing (FRH)].
On February 7, 2024, a Board Panel determined "[p]robable cause
exist[ed] that the commission of the noted violations [wa]s serious and
A-0152-24
4
revocation [wa]s desirable. . . ." Therefore, Sanders was to remain in custody
pending an FRH.
On March 21, 2024, an FRH was conducted before a hearing officer.
Officer Pfeffer and Officer Sass provided testimony similar to their testimony
at the probable cause hearing. In addition, Clayton Neal, a First Lead Treatment
Assistant at the VOA, testified. He stated he had encountered Sanders on August
24, 2023. He explained Sanders had been subjected to a search upon his return
to the facility and Sanders had stated "he [w]as caught with K2." According to
Neal, Sanders was "discharged from [PROMISE] as a result." Neal testified that
the item seized from Sanders had never been tested and he could not advise as
to its chemical composition.
Officer Pfeffer submitted the VOA discharge summary. In addition, she
called Arnold Valentin, VOA's Assistant Director of the Addiction and
Treatment Program. Valentin testified that he had received a call after Sanders
returned to the VOA and was "giving staff a problem with searching him."
Valentin described the seized item as "a sandwich bag with green vegetation
inside that resembled marijuana or synthetic marijuana and that it was in budded
form." He could not "testify if it was actual marijuana or actual K2."
A-0152-24
5
Valentin explained "that as a result . . . [Sanders] received a disciplinary
discharge from the program." Further, Valentin stated VOA "had to discharge
[Sanders] based on the contraband and that he was trying to conceal it and bring
it into the program." He explained:
[I]t was contraband either way. . . . [I]f the substance
was tested and it was not a narcotic or an illegal
substance, it would still be considered contraband
because [Sanders] concealed it and tried to sneak it into
the program. . . . [E]ven if the item was seasoning, he
would still be discharged because of his behavior
associated with it by attempting to conceal it and bring
it into the program.
The hearing officer did not sustain the violation concerning unlawful
possession of CDS because there was "no field testing or lab reports" of the
seized item alleged to be K2. In addition, the hearing officer found "the
testimony provided to be very limited in nature and d[id] not establish
possession of synthetic cannabinoid." Therefore, the "hearing officer f[ou]nd[]
the testimony and evidence presented to be less than reliable in terms of
establishing clear and convincing evidence."
However, the hearing officer sustained the Special Condition violation.
The hearing officer noted the "VOA [d]ischarge [s]ummary" was submitted and
"Valentin testified that even if the item seized from [Sanders] was not synthetic
cannabinoids, it would still be considered program contraband due to the
A-0152-24
6
behavior associated with it and [Sanders] concealing it and attempting to bring
it into VOA." The hearing officer found, based upon the VOA discharge
summary and the testimony presented, clear and convincing evidence existed to
establish Sanders had violated the Special Condition of his parole.
The hearing officer noted Sanders "completed the treatment phase of
PROMISE," but on August 24, 2023, he "was found to be in possession of
program contraband" and received a disciplinary discharge. The hearing officer
found:
Despite attempts by Parole to assist [Sanders]
with his re-entry and rehabilitation, [he] has
demonstrated poor coping and decision-making skills
and a blatant disregard towards the conditions of his
supervision by bringing contraband into an addiction
treatment program. This hearing officer finds that
[Sanders]'s commission of the noted violation is serious
and revocation is desirable. For these reasons,
[Sanders] is not amenable to supervision.
Sanders contended the hearing officer had erred because, after "[h]aving
concluded that [he] was not in possession of CDS . . . and did not attempt to
bring K2 into an addiction treatment facility, the [h]earing [o]fficer should have
found that the discharge from the VOA program was without basis." Therefore,
Sanders argued "[t]he recommendation of revocation cannot be supported by
clear and convincing evidence where the foundation of the violation (discharge
A-0152-24
7
from a community program) was based on conduct (bringing CDS into the
program) that was not sustained." Sanders requested that he be "continued on
supervision [subject] to appropriate conditions."
In April 2024, the Board Panel determined that Sanders's PSL should be
"revoked as the violation [wa]s serious and revocation [wa]s desirable." The
Board Panel concluded Sanders must "[s]erve a [sixteen]-month term of
incarceration."
In May 2024, Sanders appealed to the full Parole Board. On July 31, 2024,
the Parole Board issued a Notice of Final Agency Decision. The Parole Board
found that the "Board [P]anel . . . fully documented and supported its decision
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.18(b)." Moreover, the Parole Board "concur[red]
with the determination of the Board [P]anel that clear and convincing evidence
exist[ed] that . . . Sanders ha[d] seriously violated a condition of [PSL] and
revocation of . . . Sanders'[s PSL] status [wa]s desirable." In addition, the Parole
Board considered Sanders's history, including his two prior violations, and
applying N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.12, determined the sixteen-month sentence was
appropriate. Thus, the Parole Board affirmed the Board Panel's "decision to
revoke . . . Sanders'[s PSL] status and direct[ed] him to serve a sixteen . . . month
term of incarceration."
A-0152-24
8
On appeal, Sanders argues the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. He contends the Parole Board erred because: (1)
the "disciplinary discharge was based on his alleged possession of
'contraband/K2'" and there was no clear and convincing evidence of such
possession; (2) "even if his possession of the unconfirmed substance was
considered program contraband that could justify his disciplinary discharge, the
violation of the Special Condition under those circumstances was neither serious
nor persistent and did not make parole revocation desirable"; (3) there was no
evidence "presented that showed that [he] had poor coping and decision making
skills or had disregarded several parole conditions"; and (4) revocation of parole
was not "desirable" because other less restrictive responses to the violation were
available.
The parole revocation process is governed by statute, N.J.S.A. 30:4-
123.45 to -.76; and regulation, N.J.A.C. 10:A-71-7.1 to -7.18. "[W]e are
deferential to an agency's expertise." Berta v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 473 N.J.
Super. 284, 302 (App. Div. 2022). Parole Board "members are appointed to
bring [their] expertise in 'law, sociology, criminal justice, juvenile justice or
related branches of the social sciences.'" Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J.
213, 222 (2016) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.47(a)). "Drawing on the diverse
A-0152-24
9
backgrounds of its members, the Parole Board makes 'highly predictive and
individualized discretionary appraisals.'" Ibid. (quoting Beckworth v. N.J. State
Parole Bd., 62 N.J. 348, 359 (1973)). Therefore, our review of the Parole
Board's decision is limited. Hare v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 175,
179 (App. Div. 2004). We will "not substitute [our] own judgment . . . even
though [we] might have reached a different result." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474,
483 (2007) (quoting Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513
(1992)). We consider:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law; (2) whether the record contains
substantial evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably
have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Berta, 473 N.J. Super. at 302 (quoting In re Carter, 191
N.J. at 482-83).]
Sanders must establish the Parole Board's decision "was arbitrary, unreasonable
or capricious." McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563
(App. Div. 2002).
"[R]evocation [is permitted] only on proof by clear and convincing
evidence that the person 'has seriously or persistently violated the conditions.'"
A-0152-24
10
Hobson v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 435 N.J. Super. 377, 382 (App. Div. 2014)
(quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.60(b) and N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d)). See also
N.J.A.C. 10A:71-7.12(a) ("A parole revocation hearing shall be conducted
when: (1) A hearing officer determines that probable cause exists to believe that
the parolee has seriously or persistently violated the conditions of parole and
that revocation of parole is desirable."). "The Legislature did not . . . define the
type of conduct it intended to capture within the statutory standard – 'seriously
or persistently violated.'" Hobson, 435 N.J. Super. at 382.
We are convinced Sanders has failed to satisfy his burden. First, Sanders
did not establish the Parole Board failed to follow the law. Second, there was
"substantial evidence" to support the finding that Sanders had received a
disciplinary discharge from the VOA and, therefore, failed to successfully
complete PROMISE as required by the Special Condition. Sanders's contention
that there is a lack of evidence that he brought CDS to the facility is misplaced.
The discharge was effectuated because he surreptitiously had brought
contraband to the facility, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that the
contraband was actually a CDS. Moreover, Sanders did not establish that the
Parole Board had made a clear error in revoking parole and requiring he serve a
sixteen-month sentence.
A-0152-24
11
To the extent we have not addressed Sanders's other arguments, we
conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0152-24
12