JAMES JONES v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1740-05T31740-05T3

JAMES JONES,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted June 14, 2006 - Decided June 29, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Coburn.

On appeal from a Final Decision of

New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Appellant submitted a pro se brief.

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 James Jones is an inmate at New Jersey State Prison. He appeals from a Final Decision of the Department of Corrections adjudicating him guilty of disciplinary infractions and imposing sanctions. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Jones was charged with *.151 (setting a fire) and *.306 (conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility). He was found guilty of both offenses. For the *.151 offense, the hearing officer recommended sanctions of fifteen days in detention, with credit for time served, two hundred ten days in administrative segregation and two hundred ten days loss of commutation time. For the *.306 offense, the hearing officer recommended fifteen days in detention, with credit for time served, to be served consecutively to the sanction for the *.151 offense.

According to the record before us, a number of fires erupted on October 1, 2005, in New Jersey State Prison in Trenton. Senior Corrections Officer (SCO) Berenger filed a report stating that he observed Jones setting one of the fires. SCO Froelich stated that he had heard Jones urging other inmates to set fires. After the fires were extinguished, Jones was placed in pre-hearing detention and charged.

It is clear from reviewing the record that Jones received the procedural protections to which he was entitled. Counsel-substitute was assigned to represent him. He declined the opportunity to present witnesses and was afforded the right of confrontation. The hearing officer accepted as credible SCO Berenger's report of his observations and rejected defendant's assertion that he had not been involved in the incident.

A final administrative decision such as that on review before us should not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998). An appellate court should undertake a "careful and principled consideration of the agency record and findings." Riverside Gen. Hosp. v. N.J. Hosp. Rate Setting Comm'n, 98 N.J. 458, 468 (1985).

We have undertaken that review, and we are satisfied that the Final Decision of the Department of Corrections should be affirmed. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1740-05T3

June 29, 2006