Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3221-11T1
02-10-2014
DANTE HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Respondent.
Dante Hayes, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Justin L. Conforti, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Waugh and Nugent.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Dante Hayes, appellant pro se.
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Justin L. Conforti, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Dante Hayes appeals the final administrative agency decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing discipline. We affirm.
Although Hayes is currently an inmate at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, he was confined at Mountainside Youth Correctional Facility in Annandale at the time the events underlying this appeal took place. As the result of altercations on November 30, 2011, during a lunchtime mess movement and then following his removal from the area, Hayes was charged with three counts of committing a prohibited act under *.002, assaulting any person, and one count of *.306, conduct which disrupts the orderly operation of the institution, contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).
Hayes had the assistance of a counsel substitute. Although he requested confrontation of two corrections officers, they were unable to appear because of injuries sustained during the incident. The disciplinary hearing took place on December 16, at which Hayes presented the statements of three witnesses and had the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. The hearing officer found Hayes guilty of each infraction, and imposed discipline including detention, administrative segregation, and loss of commutation time. Hayes filed an administrative appeal, which was unsuccessful. This appeal followed.
Hayes raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: BASED ON A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HEARING OFFICER CHRISTY RALPH ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY VIOLATED APPELLANT HAYES' PROTECTED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
POINT II: HEARING OFFICER CHRISTY RALPH VIOLATED APPELLANT HAYES' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
BY ARBITRARILY DENYING CONFRONTATION-CROSS EXAMINATION WHEN THERE WASN'T ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF INJURY.
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). We will not upset the determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; that there was a lack of fair support in the evidence; or that the decision 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). Substantial evidence is "'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961) (quoting In re Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956)).
Further, decisions of administrative agencies 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 may not vacate an agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result. De Vitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 (1985).
Because prison discipline is not part of a criminal prosecution, the full spectrum of rights due to a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). The DOC must facilitate an informal hearing to ensure that disciplinary findings are based upon verified facts and the use of discretion is informed by accurate knowledge of an inmate's behavior. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995). Our Supreme Court has recognized that the DOC's regulations for disciplinary hearings "strike the proper balance between the security concerns of the prison, the need for swift and fair discipline, and the due process rights of the inmates." Id. at 202.
Having reviewed Hayes's arguments on appeal in light of the applicable law and the facts in the record, we find them to be without merit and not requiring discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's determination and that Hayes received the level of due process applicable in cases such as this.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION