The opinion
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3522-15T4
J.K.,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
__________________________
Argued June 19, 2017 – Decided September 27, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole
Board.
James H. Maynard argued the cause for
appellant (Maynard Law Office, LLC, attorneys;
Mr. Maynard, on the brief).
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney
General, argued the cause for respondent
(Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Mr. Josephson, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
In 2005, a jury convicted J.K. of attempting to lure a twelve-
year-old girl into a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to a three-
year probationary term as well as community supervision for life
(CSL) pursuant to Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4.1
J.K. appeals a final Parole Board decision that denied his
request to transfer the CSL portion of the judgment of conviction
to Poland; he is not only a United States citizen but also a
citizen of Poland. He argues:
I. THE LEGISLATURE'S EXPLICIT PURPOSE IN
ESTABLISHING [CSL] WAS TO (1) PROTECT THE
PUBLIC AND (2) FOSTER REHABILITATION. IN THE
CASE OF ALL SUPERVISEES, AN INTERNATIONAL
TRANSFER CERTAINLY ACCOMPLISHES THE FIRST
GOAL; AND, IN MOST CASES, SUCH AS APPELLANT'S,
IT ALSO ACCOMPLISHES THE SECOND GOAL.
II. THE REQUESTED TRANSFER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
A "TERMINATION." APPELLANT'S DUTY TO REPORT
AND BE SUPERVISED SHALL RESUME IN THE EVENT
OF HIS RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES. ONLY A NEW
JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE MAY TERMINATE
APPELLANT'S CSL STATUS.
Recently, another panel of this court reversed a similar
Parole Board decision in a near-identical matter. J.S. v. N.J.
State Parole Board, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2017).2 For the
same reasons, we agree the Board mistakenly interpreted J.K.'s
application for transfer as a request for termination of CSL
1
In 2013, J.K. was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty to a
violation of a CSL condition, for which he was sentenced to a
thirty-day jail term.
2
Other than the petitioner there sought to relocate to Sweden,
and J.K. seeks to relocate to Poland, there is little to
distinguish between J.S. and this appeal.
2 A-3522-15T4
status. The Board likewise here mistakenly failed to consider
whether the Board could supervise or monitor J.K.'s compliance
with the conditions of CSL or impose special conditions if he was
permitted to relocate to Poland. What we said in J.S. in that
regard is equally true here:
It may be that there are adequate procedures
to supervise J.S. consistent with his level
of risk and the manner in which he is currently
supervised, but the record is devoid of any
information about his level of supervision or
how that may or may not be able to continue
because the Board simply assumed his petition
was one for termination and not for permission
to transfer residence and supervision. The
Board has the ability to impose conditions
appropriate for the protection of the public
and for rehabilitation. It certainly had the
ability to require J.S. to suggest appropriate
conditions.
[Id. at __ (slip op. at 8-9).]
And, as in J.S., here too "the Board did not undertake an informed
consideration of any conditions that might be appropriate" before
simply denying the application. Id. at __ (slip op. at 9). We,
thus, join our colleagues in J.S. in deeming "arbitrary" the
Board's summary rejection of J.K.'s application. Ibid.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
3 A-3522-15T4