Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3541-12T3
04-02-2015
FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Francisco Sanchez, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Accurso and Manahan. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Francisco Sanchez, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Francisco Sanchez appeals from a January 24, 2013 final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections denying his request for community release status and transfer to a halfway house. We affirm.
Sanchez is a State prisoner at Bayside State Prison. He was incarcerated in 2001 after having pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter to resolve an indictment for murder. Sanchez was sentenced to serve a nineteen-year prison term subject to the periods of parole ineligibility and supervision required by the No Early Release Act. In 2008, while incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, he was indicted on two counts of third-degree aggravated assault on two corrections officers. Sanchez pled guilty to one count of fourth-degree aggravated assault and was sentenced to serve a term of 120 days, consecutive to the sentence he was then serving.
The prison's Institution Classification Committee (ICC) considered and rejected Sanchez's request for a residential community program placement or halfway house pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.10, based on the circumstances of his present offenses and history of institutional violence. Appellant appealed and the Department affirmed the ICC's determination, concluding that the decision of the Committee was supported and that Sanchez could reapply after one year.
On this appeal, Sanchez claims he had a legitimate expectation of community release status based on the statutes and regulations governing such status, the Department violated the Equal Protection Clause and its own rules in denying him community release and the decision was arbitrary and abusive. We disagree.
Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). Agency decisions carry with them a presumption of reasonableness. City of Newark v. Natural Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530, 539, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S. Ct. 400, 66 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1980). We will not upset the determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; that it lacked fair support in the evidence; or that it violated legislative policies. In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). We may not vacate an agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result. See De Vitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 (1985).
The "[c]lassification of prisoners and the decision as to what privileges they will receive rests solely within the discretion of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 30 (App. Div. 2001); see also N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6. Inmates do not have a liberty interest in retaining or acquiring a less restricted custody status. Smith, supra, 346 N.J. Super. at 29; Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 103, 109 (App. Div. 2000); Muhammad v. Balicki, 327 N.J. Super. 369, 371-73 (App. Div. 2000). "A reduction in custody status is a privilege and not a right." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.2; Moore, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 109.
The ICC and Commissioner, as Sanchez notes, do not have unbridled discretion in assigning a particular custody level. Smith, supra, 346 N.J. Super. at 33. The ICC's discretion is constrained by N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.10, which permits it to consider the general eligibility criteria of N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4 and the criteria contained in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3, including the nature and circumstances of the inmate's present offense, correctional facility adjustment and any other factor pertinent to the inmate's case.
Sanchez is serving two sentences for crimes involving violent attacks on his victims, one of which occurred while he was incarcerated. The ICC obviously relied on those facts in denying his request for halfway house placement. Although Sanchez raises an equal protection claim, he nowhere explains how he was treated differently from other similarly-situated inmates. He likewise does not explain how he believes the Department violated its own rules. Our own review convinces us the ICC did not violate any rule or regulation and that the Administrator of Bayside did not abuse the discretion delegated to him by the Commissioner in denying Sanchez's application for a halfway-house placement.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION