SEAN BYRNE 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3795-05T33795-05T3

SEAN BYRNE,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 18, 2006 - Decided November 8, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Collester.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department

of Corrections.

Sean Byrne, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C.

Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Sean Byrne appeals from the adjudication of disciplinary infractions, including attempting to misuse or possess unauthorized electronic equipment, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 *.009 and *.803, and asserts that he "was denied due process during his disciplinary hearing." He claims that "[t]he evidence only proves that he called his friend and he called his Grandmother for (15) minutes." He further asserts that, in violation of the regulations, the adjudication form "is not legible" and he "does not know what evidence was relied upon to conclude that he was guilty." He also contends that the disciplinary reports are inadequate. Moreover, appellant argues that the failure of counsel substitute to "do anything to help appellant or find the truth" necessitates reversal. Finally, Byrne seeks dismissal of the charges because his conduct in not defending himself was based on fear that family members would be charged, and he was coerced by the hearing officer.

Appellant pled guilty to the disciplinary infractions. He does not challenge the plea, and we do not believe the record supports the claim of inadequate counsel substitute, even assuming there is a right to a collateral attack upon the effectiveness of counsel substitute. In any event, any attack must be made before the hearing officer who can review the claim in context, and absent such an attack before the hearing officer, based on specific reasons, there is no record to permit our review. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the result would have been different if appellant were assisted by other counsel substitute.

We conclude that the guilty plea is dispositive of the other contentions raised by appellant, and that appellant's due process rights were fully honored. See Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Moreover, the hearing officer listened to the tape (which is not presented to us) and found it sustained the investigating officer's claim.

The final administrative determination is affirmed.

 

The illegibility of the form on which it was recorded would not affect the propriety of the adjudication or the nature of the proofs presented. In any event, the form has been typed by the respondent and there is no claim that it was improperly replicated.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3795-05T3

November 8, 2006