Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0324-13T2
03-10-2015
DARNELL TATUM, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Darnell Tatum, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan E. Shafranski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Sabatino and Simonelli. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Darnell Tatum, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan E. Shafranski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Darnell Tatum, a State prisoner, appeals an August 14, 2013 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections. The decision upheld a disciplinary hearing officer's finding that appellant committed prohibited act *.004, fighting with another person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), while he was housed at South Woods State Prison. Appellant contests that finding as well as the sanctions that the Department imposed, which included ten days detention (with credit for time served), 180 days administrative segregation, and 180 days of forfeited commutation time. We affirm.
The fighting incident occurred on the morning of August 12, 2013. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. that day, appellant's cellmate reported to corrections staff that he had been assaulted in the cell, and that he did not feel safe to return. The cellmate had a one-inch cut on his left forearm and complained of a right shoulder injury. The staff investigating the complaint noted that appellant had a lump and cut on his right eyebrow. Appellant initially stated that the lump and scratch had "just appeared," then changed his story and claimed that he had simply hit his face on the door as he was leaving his cell.
Appellant was served with the disciplinary charge at 10:05 a.m. on the following day, August 13, 2013. The disciplinary hearing concluded at 9:30 a.m. on August 14, 2013. Appellant pled not guilty and requested and was granted a counsel substitute. He did not request to present witnesses or confront adverse witnesses. Based on the responding officer's report, the medical reports, and the cellmate's statement, the hearing officer found appellant guilty and imposed sanctions.
Appellant appealed and requested leniency. The administrative appeal was denied by the Associate Administrator of South Woods on August 14, 2013. The Administrator particularly noted that the sanction imposed by the hearing officer was "appropriate and proportionate to the offense in view."
On appeal, Tatum raises the following points:
POINT I
VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF TWENTY-FOUR HOUR NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
POINT II
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HAVE INMATE REPRESENTATIVE IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COLLECT AND GATHER EVIDENCE OR UNABLE TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT YOUR CASE.
POINT III
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO REQUEST CONFRONTATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION OF ADVERSE WITNESSES.
POINT IV
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HAVE ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM PRESENTED TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT HIS CASE.
POINT V
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO HAVE A DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
POINT VI
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.
POINT VII
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES DUE TO HIM AS OUTLINED IN THE HANDBOOK ON DISCIPLINE.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record supplied to us and the applicable law, we find no merit to these contentions. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add only a few observations.
We generally do not disturb the Department's administrative decision to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an inmate, unless the inmate demonstrates that the decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that the record lacks substantial, credible evidence to support that decision. Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 222 (1995); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). Appellant has failed to do so here. The hearing officer was entitled to credit the cellmate's report that he had been assaulted, which was consistent with his bodily injuries, and to disbelieve appellant's various accounts of what had happened. There is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the finding of guilt.
We also reject all of appellant's claims of procedural deficiencies. He received proper notice of the charges, had a fair opportunity for a hearing accompanied by a counsel substitute, and bypassed the opportunity to present competing evidence through his own witnesses. He sufficiently received the limited procedural protections accorded to inmates in disciplinary matters. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522, 536-37 (1975). The fact that his hearing apparently began in the twenty-third hour after service of the charges does not mandate reversal, as no actual prejudice has been shown.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION