EDWARD GARCIA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3290-04T13290-04T1

EDWARD GARCIA,

Inmate-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

______________________________________

 

Submitted: September 20, 2006 - Decided October 27, 2006

Before Judges Stern and A. A. Rodr guez.

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

Edward Garcia, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On February 1, 2005, while appellant, Edward Garcia, was an inmate at Jones Farm, a satellite of the Central Reception and Assignment Facility in Trenton, he was charged with committing prohibited act .210, possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by an inmate. N.J.A.C. 10A:18-4.2(a),

-4.9(a)6.iii. Senior Corrections Officer Charles S. Raynor, found a pornographic magazine and a jewelry catalog in appellant's locker. Possession of these items is prohibited. The items were seized and appellant was served with a disciplinary report. Sergeant K. Schoenborn conducted an investigation. Appellant denied knowledge of the origins of the magazines and catalog. Sergeant Schoenborn referred the matter for a courtline adjudication hearing.

Hearing Officer Donald Wiater presided over the courtline hearing. Appellant requested certain witnesses to give statements to the effect that inmates have access to each other's lockers. During the hearing, appellant did not request the assistance of a counsel substitute. Appellant was permitted to make a statement and present evidence to rebut the charge. He declined the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. He requested that Senior Corrections Officer Fowler provide a written statement.

The Hearing Officer found that Officer Fowler's statement "does not support [the] inmate's version or story." He also found that appellant committed prohibited act .210 and recommended the following disciplinary sanctions: fifteen days detention; sixty days administrative segregation; sixty days loss of commutation time; and confiscation of the pornographic magazine.

Appellant pursued an administrative appeal. Assistant Superintendent S.J. Hatrak upheld the adjudication, but modified the sanctions by reducing the number of detention days to five and rescinding the administrative segregation.

On appeal to us, appellant raises several contentions:

(1) Violations of [appellant's] due process rights, insufficient time allow for defense from date of adjudicated charge, the denial of witness, cross examination, denial of a fair defense, denial of law reference assistance to prepare defense, found guilty of disciplinary charge beyond reasonable doubts;

(2) Malicious actions as well corrupted, conspiracy, endangering the safety and dignity of [appellant] by the deliberate indifference from [appellant] complaint to Lt. Jimenez, [Corrections Officer] Fowler, [Corrections Officer] Manion for the verbal dispute and threats to [inmate] Garcia by [inmate] X. Vazquez;

(3) Failed to complied with rules and regulations standar[d] coded to DOC by UCL and DOJ model code, by neglecting a factual complaint from [appellant], about an incident with another [inmate] (X. Vazquez) the same that was witnessed by [Corrections Officer] Fowler.

Appellant raises the following supplemental contentions: (1) appellant denies charge .210; (2) appellant was denied due process of law because the library was not fully accessible and was incomplete; (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove that appellant possessed or owned the magazine; (4) the Hearing Officer's sanctions were malicious; (5) "the question to witness was not appropriate to the purpose of justice . . . such it mighted [sic] been the result for a malicious action to entrapment of [appellant] and tamper with any evidence against [appellant]. . . ."; and (6) "the Hearing Officer did changed [appellant's] statements (in part) in what he did requested at hearing . . ."

We have considered these contentions in light of the entire record and the applicable law. We are convinced that appellant's disciplinary hearing comported with the necessary procedural due process requirements. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 198-99 (1995). These procedures insured an appropriable level of rights generally accorded to prison inmates as determined by law. Id. at 195. We are also firmly convinced that there was substantial evidence to support the adjudication. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3290-04T1

October 27, 2006