Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1698-11T4
05-03-2013
HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Harold Watkins, appellant pro se. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Messano and Kennedy.
On appeal from New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Harold Watkins, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Harold Watkins, an inmate at South Woods State Prison (SWSP), appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections imposing disciplinary sanctions against him. The Department sustained a hearing officer's finding that appellant had committed prohibited act *.202 ("possession or introduction of a weapon, such as, but not limited to, a sharpened instrument, knife or unauthorized tool"), in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.
Here are the facts. On September 16, 2011, Senior Corrections Officer (SCO) Mitchell conducted a search of appellant's cell and discovered a six-inch weapon with a shoe-string handle and an exposed razor blade attached to the underside of appellant's bed by dried soap.
Appellant was then charged with disciplinary infraction *.202 and assigned a counsel substitute. Appellant claimed "my bunkie occupied the space at the foot of the rack[,]" but declined the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing, or to call any witnesses to testify. Counsel substitute argued that the location where the weapon was found was a "common area."
After considering the SCO's report, defendant's statement and photographs, the hearing officer determined the weapon was found in appellant's "area" and that "inmates are responsible for their bed areas." The hearing officer found appellant guilty of the infraction and imposed the following sanctions: 15 days of detention, 180 days of administrative segregation and a 180-day loss of commutation time.
Appellant administratively appealed the hearing officer's decision, and Assistant Superintendent James Haas upheld the ruling of the hearing officer, having determined "the evidence supports the charge[.]" This appeal followed.
In his brief submitted to this court, appellant variously contends that the hearing officer was biased, her findings of guilt were not supported by substantial evidence, and, on the whole, he was denied due process. We reject these arguments.
The scope of our review of an agency decision is limited. "An appellate court ordinarily will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only when the agency's decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or is unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ramirez v. N.J. 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 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)).
The record before us amply supports the conclusions of the hearing officer. The report of SCO Mitchell stated that the weapon was discovered beneath appellant's bed and attached by some dried soap to the underside of the bed. This specific assertion of fact in this circumstance constitutes substantial credible evidence, as found by the hearing officer, and the Department could properly adopt the hearing officer's findings.
The balance of appellant's arguments lack sufficient merit to be discussed in this written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION