Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5001-12T1
03-02-2015
ALFRED TYSON, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Alfred Tyson, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Ashrafi. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Alfred Tyson, 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
Alfred Tyson is an inmate at the Northern State Prison in Newark serving a thirteen-year sentence with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, for his conviction for second degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1). Tyson appeals from the final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing disciplinary sanctions for committing: (1) prohibited act *.203, possession or introduction of any prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate by the medical or dental staff, and (2) prohibited act *.704, perpetrating frauds, deceptions, confidence games, riots or escapes plots, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).
The charge of possession of a prohibited substance stems from a search of appellant's cell conducted by a Correction Officer (CO) Recruit on May 6, 2013. The CO reported finding "[two] hand[-]rolled cigarettes secreted between storage containers and a hand held mirror." The leafy substance in the cigarettes initially tested negative for marijuana in a field test. The suspected contraband was submitted to the State Police Laboratory for further testing, where it tested positive for marijuana.
On May 6, 2013, appellant also attended a disciplinary hearing for an unrelated charge under .554, possession of tobacco products or matches where not permitted. Appellant claimed this charge was baseless and had been fabricated by certain COs who disliked him. In support of this claim, appellant produced a note ostensibly written and signed by a Senior Correction Officer (SCO) named Drummond, stating:
On 5-1-13 a cell search was conducted on 4DN-2 Tier #18 which belongs to inmate Tyson 597470, upon completion of this cell search I was informed to let inmate Tyson back in his cell and I believe no contraband was found, or ever there [sic] but fabricated.
SCO Drummond denied writing or signing the note. The hearing officer found the note was forged, resulting in the charge of forgery under *.704 against appellant. In a separate hearing, appellant was also found to have committed the disciplinary charge of .554, possession of tobacco products or matches where not permitted. Based on the evidence presented, appellant was sanctioned on the forgery charge to fifteen days detention, 180 days administrative segregation, and 180 days loss of commutation time. On the charge of possession of marijuana, he was sanctioned ten days detention (with credit for time served), 365 days permanent loss of contact visits, 365 days urine monitoring, 180 days administrative segregation, 180 days loss of commutation time, and fifteen days loss of recreation privileges.
Appellant exhausted the internal DOC administrative appellate process and now appeals to this court arguing "someone planted evidence in his cell, because of [an] earlier incident with [an] officer." He emphasizes that the field test of the two hand-rolled cigarettes allegedly found in his cell initially tested negative for marijuana. He also claims that he submitted to urine screening, which "came back clean negative," proving he did not have marijuana in his system.
Our review of the agency's decision here is limited. In reviewing a final DOC decision, we will defer to the agency's conclusions so long as the decision is not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial credible evidence. Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (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. N.J. 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)).
When reviewing a DOC prison discipline decision, we consider not only whether there is substantial evidence that the inmate committed the prohibited act, but also whether, in making its decision, the DOC followed the regulations adopted to afford inmates due process. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-95 (1995).
Here, appellant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the record by the hearing officer. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Appellant did not produce any competent evidence to support his claim that contraband evidence was intentionally planted by SCO Drummond or any other CO acting in concert with him. The hearing officer's finding that appellant's production of the handwritten note claiming to have been authored by SCO Drummond was a forgery was supported by the evidence, which included SCO Drummond's testimony denying he wrote this note.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION