Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1717-13T3
09-23-2014
MICHAEL MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Michael Martinez, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lucy E. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Yannotti and Fasciale. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Michael Martinez, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lucy E. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Michael Martinez appeals from an October 24, 2013, final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) upholding a determination that he is guilty of prohibited act *.215, possession of prohibited substances with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2013, Martinez unsuccessfully attempted to walk through a metal detector at a halfway house where he was confined. A manager asked him to step aside and await further instructions, and a supervisor then observed Martinez pull a large bundle from his pants and toss it on the floor. The bundle contained a ziplock bag of synthetic marijuana, six packs of cigarette rolling paper, eighteen blunt rolling papers, five packs of instant sanka coffee, and four plastic gloves filled with clear liquid smelling of alcohol.
A Hearing Officer (HO) conducted a hearing. Martinez pled not guilty, defended the matter using counsel substitute, and cross-examined the manager and supervisor by questioning them in writing. Martinez did not call any witnesses. Martinez requested permission to take a polygraph examination and to see video surveillance that he mistakenly believed captured the incident. Both requests were denied. The HO found Martinez guilty. Martinez filed an administrative appeal resulting in the final decision under review.
The HO imposed various sanctions, which Martinez has not challenged in this appeal.
On appeal, Martinez argues that the there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the infraction and urges us to "substitute [our] judgment" for that of the NJDOC. He also contends that he was denied due process by the decision to deny his requests to review the video surveillance and submit to a polygraph examination.
Our review of the NJDOC's decision is limited. We will only reverse when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see also In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999) (indicating that a court must uphold an agency's findings, even if "it would have reached a different result," so long as "sufficient credible evidence in the record" exists to support the agency's conclusions).
Applying this standard, we conclude that Martinez's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E). We add the following brief remarks.
The final decision of the NJDOC is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The HO considered all the evidence produced at the hearing, including Martinez's statement denying that he pulled the bundle out from inside his pants, the staff reports, a photograph of the contraband, and the testimony from the manager and supervisor. We conclude, therefore, that the final decision is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
We see no error regarding the videotape. The HO noted that the incident was not captured on surveillance, and Martinez's cross-examination of the manager and supervisor demonstrates that Martinez "had moved to the rear corner of the lobby directly under the video camera to avoid video recording of his actions." And there is no evidence to support Martinez's suggestion that the video camera or metal detector malfunctioned.
We reverse a decision not to give a prisoner a polygraph examination only when that determination is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005). "An inmate's request for a polygraph examination shall not be sufficient cause for granting the request." N.J.A.C. 10A:3-7.1(c); Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 298 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997). N.J.A.C. 10A:3-7.1 "is designed to prevent the routine administration of polygraphs, and a polygraph is clearly not required on every occasion that an inmate denies a disciplinary charge against him." Ramirez, supra, 382 N.J. Super. at 23-24. A request should be granted only "when there is a serious question of credibility and the denial of the examination would compromise the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary process." Id. at 20. Applying these standards, we conclude that there was no error.
Finally, an incarcerated inmate is not entitled to the full panoply of rights in a disciplinary proceeding as is a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). An inmate is entitled to written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing; an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions imposed; and, where the charges are complex, the inmate is permitted the assistance of counsel substitute. Id. at 523-29. Martinez was afforded the process an inmate is due.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION