FARRARD DEHUNTAQUAN v. DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2506-04T52506-04T5

FARRARD DEHUNTAQUAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted October 3, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Farrard Dehuntaquan, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Based on a confrontation with corrections officers that occurred on December 13, 2004, petitioner Ferrard Dehuntaquan, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, was charged with committing the following five prohibited acts: *.005, threatening another person with bodily harm or with any offense against his or her person; *.012, throwing bodily fluid at any person or otherwise purposely subjecting such person to contact with a bodily fluid; .256, refusing to obey an order of any staff member; *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility; and *.708, refusal to submit to a search. After an administrative hearing he was found guilty of all charges.

On this appeal, Dehuntaquan contends that he was denied due process, because the hearing was delayed and because he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. He also contends that the Department of Corrections decision was against the weight of the evidence. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the agency's decision was supported by substantial credible evidence, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), and that Dehuntaquan's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following comments.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's conclusions that the inmate resisted being searched and was otherwise uncooperative, cursed at and threatened prison staff, and spit on a corrections officer. Petitioner's due process arguments, raised for the first time on appeal, are without merit. The hearing was delayed at his request, because he wanted the hearing officer to view a videotape of the incident. At the hearing, petitioner, who was represented by a counsel substitute, waived confrontation and cross-examination of the witnesses against him.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2506-04T5

October 14, 2005

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.