ALONZO BRYANT v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4053-04T24053-04T2

ALONZO BRYANT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted November 30, 2005 - Decided January 12, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of

the Department of Corrections.

Alonzo Bryant, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Walter C.

Kowalski, Deputy Attorney General, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Alonzo Bryant was convicted of murder and two counts of robbery and is currently serving a life sentence, with a minimum period of fifty-five years before he is eligible for parole. He appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request to remove the designation "high risk" from the face sheet of his inmate file. He also appeals from the DOC's refusal to remove a bribery charge from his face sheet.

Petitioner argues that his right, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-3.1(A), to be treated respectfully, impartially and fairly has been violated, because there is no factual or legal support for the DOC's actions. Based on the record before us, and applying the applicable standard of review, we reject petitioner's argument and affirm.

These are the salient facts. On February 26, 1993, petitioner was charged with murder, robbery, attempted murder and aggravated assault. He was held initially at the Burlington County Detention Center while awaiting trial. On or about July 16, 1995, the Burlington County Corrections Department informed the State DOC that petitioner had attempted to bribe a county corrections officer by offering money to help him escape. It is undisputed that petitioner was not convicted of bribery. Shortly after this incident, petitioner was transferred to the New Jersey State Prison.

Petitioner was convicted in 1997 for murder and robbery. The Face Sheet Report maintained by the DOC reflects the following three separate notations under the category of "Alerts:" (1) Keep Separate; (2) Medical - Mental Health History; and (3) Security - High Risk. Directly across from the entry "high risk," there is a reference indicating: "see Memo from Burlington County Jail."

Ronald H. Cathel, the Administrator of the State Prison in Trenton, provided the following explanation by way of certification for petitioner's "high risk" designation:

3. Bryant has been designated a "high risk" because of criminal charges including aggravated assault of a uniformed police officer, murder, and because of information provided from Burlington County indicating that he is an escape risk.

4. The "high risk" designation does not affect Bryant's objective classification in any other way.

5. Although Bryant is currently being held in close custody because of a disciplinary violation, his most recent objective classification score requires that he be assigned to maximum custody because of the severity of his current offense and his history of institutional violations within the last 5 years.

The scope of our review of a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. "[A]n appellate court will reverse the decision of the administrative agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-580 (1980)). "Unless a court finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).

 
The DOC's "high risk" classification is rationally related to petitioner's criminal history. Although the allegations of bribery were not conclusively established in an adjudicative proceeding, they were deemed sufficient to prompt petitioner's removal from the County Detention Center at the time he was awaiting trial. Under these circumstances, petitioner's classification constitutes an appropriate response to a valid penological concern.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4053-04T2

January 12, 2006