NA'EEM SANTIAGO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1785-05T11785-05T1

NA'EEM SANTIAGO,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

Submitted August 9, 2006 - Decided August 21, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Winkelstein.

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

Na'eem Santiago, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael Hass, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Sean M. Gorman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Na'eem Santiago is incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton serving a forty-year-to-life sentence for murder and other convictions. He appeals from a November 4, 2005 final decision of the Department of Corrections finding him guilty of disciplinary infractions *.004, fighting with another person, and *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility. The agency imposed fifteen days of detention and 300 days of administrative segregation on the *.004 charge, and on the *.306 conviction, the agency imposed consecutive fifteen days of detention and 180 days of loss of recreational privileges. On appeal, appellant raises the following issues:

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER WAS NOT BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE VACATED.

. . . .

POINT II

THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION FAILED TO ARTICULATE FACTS ESTABLISHING APPELLANT'S GUILT.

POINT III

THE HEARING WAS CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF NUMEROUS CODES OF TITLE 10A WHICH GOVERNS THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.

We have reviewed the record in detail and have considered appellant's arguments in light of the existing law. We find his arguments to be without merit and affirm.

The charges arose out of an altercation that took place on August 28, 2005, in which approximately sixteen inmates attacked inmate Vincent Abruzia in the recreation deck area of the administrative segregation unit of the prison. Sergeant S. Alaimo reported that Santiago was one of six inmates whom he saw punch and kick Abruzia. The Sergeant confirmed his observation by reviewing videotapes of the altercation. Officer J. Molock also observed the assault, and reported that appellant was among those he saw punching and kicking Abruzia and attacking another inmate who went to Abruzia's aid.

Appellant was placed in prehearing detention, provided with a copy of the charges against him, and advised of his immunity rights. While declining to personally make a statement, through his counsel substitute appellant denied he was involved in the assault.

The hearing officer reviewed the videotapes of the incident, but did not rely on his own observations because he did "not know the faces of any of the people involved in [the] event." The hearing officer denied appellant the right to view the videotapes.

We conclude that the findings of the hearing officer could reasonably have been reached on sufficient evidence in the record. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). Sergeant Alaimo and Officer Molock specifically observed appellant's involvement in the altercation. Despite appellant's claims to the contrary, the hearing officer's rejection of appellant's argument and reliance on the corrections officers' written reports was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). As an appellate court, we defer to the agency decision so long as sufficient credible evidence in the record exists to support the agency's findings. See Sager v. O.A. Peterson Constr. Co., 182 N.J. 156, 164 (2004); In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999). That is the case here. The evidence supports the agency's finding that appellant was involved in the assault on Abruzia.

We also conclude that appellant was adjudicated after all procedural safeguards to which he was entitled were followed. The failure to allow him to view the videotapes was not an abuse of discretion, and did not compromise the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. See Ramirez v. Dep't of Corrs., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23-26 (App. Div. 2005); Johnson v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 298 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997). Appellant was afforded a counsel substitute who was given an opportunity to review the written answers of the witnesses and make arguments accordingly. Appellant was advised of his immunity rights. He was given an opportunity to call witnesses and cross-examine the agency's witnesses. He declined to call other witnesses or personally make a statement. He was aware of the charges against him prior to the hearing, and the agency's reasons for adjourning the hearing were reasonable and entitled to our deference.

Appellant claims his right to due process was denied in that he was not adjudicated guilty until November, while the incident occurred in August. His arguments are without merit. The initial hearing began on August 31, 2005, within three days of his placement in prehearing detention. While the hearing was adjourned on multiple occasions, it was done so primarily to permit appellant to formulate questions for the corrections officers who were to testify against him and to allow those corrections officers to prepare written answers to those questions. We do not find that the postponements constituted an abuse of discretion by the agency nor did they compromise the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. See Ramirez, supra, 382 N.J. Super. at 20.

Appellant's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D)&(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-1785-05T1

 

August 21, 2006