MIGUEL ROMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5282-04T15282-04T1

MIGUEL ROMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted February 1, 2006 - Decided March 7, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Fuentes.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision

of the Department of Corrections.

Miguel Roman, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;

Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Miguel Roman, is an inmate serving a four-year term of imprisonment. He pled guilty to violating *.306, interference with the security or orderly running of a penal facility. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. He received an administrative sanction of 15 days of detention, 270 days administrative segregation, and 270 days loss of commutation time.

Although not directly stated in his pro se brief, petitioner attacks the validity of his plea to the regulatory charges, and the subsequent imposition of sanctions, based on an alleged denial of his rights to procedural due process. After reviewing the record, we conclude that petitioner's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, and affirm. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

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).

Here, petitioner was given proper notice of the charges against him. He did not call any witnesses in his defense, and was provided with the assistance of counsel substitute. There is no indication that the hearing officer was partial in any manner.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5282-04T1

March 7, 2006