Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0345-14T2
02-23-2016
RONALD BENEDETTO, JR., Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Joshua H. Reinitz argued the cause for appellant Ronald Benedetto, Jr. (Iacullo Martino, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Reinitz, of counsel and on the briefs). Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Corrections (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Bueno, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Alvarez and Haas. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Joshua H. Reinitz argued the cause for appellant Ronald Benedetto, Jr. (Iacullo Martino, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Reinitz, of counsel and on the briefs). Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Corrections (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Bueno, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Ronald Benedetto, Jr., an inmate currently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, appeals from the August 4, 2014 decision of the South Woods Administrator denying appellant's request to reinstate his father's and sister's visiting privileges. We affirm.
We begin by referencing the essential background facts set forth in our earlier opinions relating to this issue. Appellant is currently serving a life sentence for murder, with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility. Benedetto v. Dep't of Corr. (Benedetto I), No. A-1436-08 (App. Div. September 3, 2010) (slip op. at 1).
Appellant entered State prison on March 25, 1988.
In 2006, appellant "became involved in a large-scale contraband smuggling and money laundering operation[,]" which involved approximately 130 other inmates. Id. at 1-2. As part of the operation, the family members of inmates "furnished" money to pay for "contraband, including drugs, weapons, cellular telephones[,] and escape paraphernalia," that were "smuggled into [the New Jersey State Prison] and delivered to the inmates who had paid the pre-arranged price to purchase the items." Id. at 2. The Department of Corrections' (the Department) investigation revealed that fifty civilians "aided certain inmates in the operation" from outside the prison. Ibid. Both appellant's father and sister were identified as participants in the illegal activities. Id. at 3. As a result, on November 27, 2006, the Department permanently banned both individuals from visiting appellant in prison. Id. at 3-4.
Appellant argues that this ban only applied to "contact visits" and not to "non-contact window visits." We disagree. As set forth in our opinion, appellant's father and sister were banned from entering all State correctional facilities and, therefore, no visitation, contact or otherwise, was permitted. Id. at 4.
In August 2008, appellant's father and sister requested reinstatement of their visiting privileges. Id. at 5. Concluding that the presence of these two individuals "pose[d] a potential threat to the security of" the prison, the Department denied this request. Ibid.
Appellant appealed this determination and, after two remands, the Department issued a decision on March 30, 2010, again upholding the ban. Id. at 6-10. In affirming the Department's determination, we held that "[t]here [was] substantial, undisputed evidence that [appellant's father and sister] participated in a sophisticated smuggling scheme that resulted in the introduction of contraband, including a gun and drugs, into the prison, and that their conduct created a serious safety and security threat to prison guards and other inmates." Id. at 15.
In 2013, appellant and his father were again involved in a scheme to illegally send funds into appellant's prison. Benedetto v. N.J. Dep't of Corr. (Benedetto II), No. A-3571-12 (App. Div. June 16, 2014) (slip op. at 2). We described this incident as follows:
On January 28, 2013, appellant's friend, who was listed on his visitor list, sent two money orders to two different South Woods inmates. On that same date, the prison received a third money order that was sent to appellant by his father. The three money orders were consecutively numbered and all were issued on the same day.
[Ibid.]
Four days later, appellant attempted to forward funds to another inmate's friend outside the prison. Id. at 6. The Department charged appellant with prohibited act .802/.752, attempting to give money or anything of value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, another inmate; and .802/.754, attempting to give money or anything of value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, a member of another inmate's family or another inmate's friend with an intent to circumvent any correctional facility or Department rule, regulation, or policy or with an intent to further an illegal or improper purpose, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Id. at 1-2.
The Department found appellant guilty of both charges and imposed administrative sanctions. Id. at 3. Appellant appealed, and we upheld the sanctions. Id. at 5-6.
In April 2013, appellant's father asked that his visiting privileges be reinstated. The Department denied this request on May 7, 2013. In June 2013, appellant asked to have non-contact visits with his father and, in September 2013, requested non-contact visits with his "family." The Department denied these requests, and appellant filed an appeal. On June 24, 2014, we granted the Department's motion for a remand so that the South Woods Administrator could review the matter and issue a new decision. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The parties have treated appellant's reference to his "family" as a reference to his father and sister. There is no visitation ban currently in place for any other family members. Benedetto I, supra, slip op. at 16.
Docket No. A-1355-13.
On August 4, 2014, the Administrator denied appellant's request to reinstate his visiting privileges with his father and sister. The Administrator noted that, in 2006, both individuals had been involved in the "elaborate scheme to introduce contraband, to include but not limited to, weapons and explosive devices at New Jersey State Prison." The Administrator also noted that, within the past year, appellant's father had again improperly sent funds into the prison.
The Administrator's decision was addressed to appellant's father but, again, the parties have interpreted it as applying to his sister as well. --------
Under those circumstances, and citing N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3(c), the Administrator found that appellant's father and sister were "persons determined, by substantial evidence, to have a harmful influence upon the inmate or to constitute a threat to the security of the correctional facility[.]" Because appellant's father and sister "present[ed] a substantial risk to the safety and security of the institution[,]" the Administrator upheld the visitation ban. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant argues that the Department's "decision to deny [him] 'window' visits with his father and sister is arbitrary, capricious[,] and unreasonable." He also asserts that the Department's decision "violates the New Jersey and United States constitutional rights to be free from cruel and[] unusual punishment." We disagree.
The scope of our review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "An appellate court ordinarily will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only when the agency's decision is 'arbitrary, capricious[,] or unreasonable or [] is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa v. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).
Applying these standards, we discern no basis for disturbing the Administrator's determination to deny appellant's request to reinstate visitation with his father and sister. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3(c), the Department has the authority to ban any visitor who is determined, by substantial evidence, to constitute a threat to the security of the correctional facility. Appellant's father and sister clearly fit this bill. As we noted in Benedetto I, supra, both individuals were involved in the scheme to smuggle contraband into the New Jersey State Prison. In addition, appellant's father improperly sent funds into South Woods only a few months before seeking to reinstate his visiting privileges. Benedetto II, supra. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the Administrator's determination to continue the ban.
Appellant contends that the contraband smuggling scheme took place in 2006, and his father and sister denied the Department's charges. He also alleges that his father disputes the 2013 charge. As reflected in our prior decisions, however, the charges were sustained. Other than referring to the passage of time since the 2006 operation was discovered, appellant does not point to any change of circumstances warranting the restoration of visitation with two individuals who have yet to acknowledge that their actions threatened the prison's safety and security.
Appellant argues that he should be permitted to have window visitation with his father and sister, as a "less restrictive" alternative to banning all visitation. Again, we disagree. Appellant's argument ignores the fact that the presence of his father and sister in a State correctional facility poses a security threat, as evidenced by our decisions in Benedetto I and Benedetto II. Thus, they cannot be permitted into a correctional facility for any type of visitation. As we noted in Benedetto I, supra, however, the visitation ban does not prohibit appellant from "maintaining a relationship with his father and sister, as he can communicate with them via mail or telephone." Slip op. at 16.
Appellant's argument that the current visitation ban constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and otherwise violates his constitutional rights also lacks merit. "[T]he United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that an inmate has a liberty interest in unfettered visitation." Jackson v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div. 2000) (citing Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S. Ct. 1904, 1908, 104 L. Ed. 2d 506, 515 (1989)), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 630 (2001). Accordingly, appellant has no federally-protected liberty interest in visits with his father and sister.
Similarly, we have held that a ban on visitation is "constitutionally non-offensive if reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives." Walker v. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 109, 114 (App. Div. 1999) (citing Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586-87, 104 S. Ct. 3227, 3232-3233, 82 L. Ed. 2d 438, 447-48 (1984)). That is clearly the case here. N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.3(c) enables the Department to maintain security and order in its prisons, control the intra-prison flow of contraband, and protect correctional employees and inmates. These are all legitimate governmental objectives. Accordingly, appellant also has no protected liberty interest under our State constitution in visits with his father and sister in the face of the substantial evidence presented that reinstating visitation would constitute a security threat.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION