THOMAS MEROLA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1845-05T21845-05T2

THOMAS MEROLA,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted May 24, 2006 - Decided July 17, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Wecker.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision

of the Department of Corrections.

Appellant submitted a pro se brief.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;

Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney

General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Thomas Merola is an inmate within the custody of the Department of Corrections. He appeals from a final decision of the Department imposing sanctions upon him for a disciplinary infraction, .709, failure to comply with a written rule or regulation of the correctional facility. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Merola is serving his sentence of incarceration at Northern State Prison. On the date in question, he was assigned to work as an inmate paralegal. In that capacity, he went to the Security Threat Group Management Unit. Prior to entering the Unit, Merola was, in accordance with procedure, searched for contraband. He was found to be in possession of two notes written on yellow paper. These notes were from inmates to other inmates. Inmates in the Unit are not permitted to receive such communications.

Merola was originally charged with *.006, extortion, blackmail, protection, demanding or receiving favors, money or anything of value in return for protection, and *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes. These charges were later revised to .709. At the court line hearing, Merola and his counsel substitute requested leniency. The hearing officer sentenced him to detention, time served, and referred him to the prison's classification committee for a job review.

We have reviewed the record and find no violation of petitioner's due process rights. We have reviewed the notes in question and question the accuracy of petitioner's characterization of them as merely requests for cigarettes. In any event, we are satisfied that the decision under review is supported by the record and cannot be considered arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. It is, therefore, affirmed. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1845-05T2

July 17, 2006