SAMMIE CHISOLM v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1455-05T31455-05T3

SAMMIE CHISOLM,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

Submitted June 7, 2006 - Decided June 27, 2006

 
Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from a final decision of the Department of Corrections.

Sammie Chisolm, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Sammie Chisolm is incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton serving a forty-year sentence for convictions of murder and other offenses. He appeals from a September 16, 2005 final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), which upheld the decision of a hearing officer that imposed disciplinary sanctions on appellant for committing prohibited acts *.004, fighting with another person, and *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional institution. On appeal, appellant claims the hearing officer's decision was not based upon substantial credible evidence and he failed to articulate facts establishing appellant's guilt. We find these arguments to be without merit and we affirm.

The charges arose out of an altercation that took place on August 28, 2005, in which approximately sixteen inmates attacked another inmate. It was alleged that the altercation was orchestrated by prison gangs. Officer A. Diaz reported that he observed appellant "with closed fists punch and kick [inmate] Abruzia" during the altercation.

A videotape of the altercation was made. Corrections Officers Nance and Degner, who viewed the videotape, identified appellant as a participant in the altercation. The hearing officer, in adjudicating the *.004 charge, made the following findings:

Officer reports he witnessed the inmate fighting with another inmate. The inmate using closed fists, punched and kicked another inmate. Officer has no reason to fabricate the charge. No evidence to discredit the officer's report. All relied on to determine guilt.

In adjudicating the *.306 charge, the hearing officer found:

Officer reports the inmate punched and kicked another inmate. Other inmates were involved in which a code was sounded. Inmate's action helped to have a code sounded and shut down NJSP for a period of time. All relied on to determine guilt.

The hearing officer recommended a fifteen-day detention sanction, with credit for time served, 180 days loss of communication credits, and 180 days of administrative segregation on the *.004 charge. On the *.306 charge, he recommended a fifteen-day detention sanction, with credit for time served, 365 days of administrative segregation and 180 days loss of recreation privileges. The sanctions were to run consecutive.

Having examined the record, we conclude that the findings by the hearing officer, as accepted by the DOC, could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record. Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). While it may have been appropriate for the hearing officer to view the videotape himself, Officer Diaz directly observed appellant in the altercation and Officers Nance and Degner identified appellant in the video as a participant in the fight. The hearing officer made specific findings. The agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1455-05T3

June 27, 2006