ROBERT L. JENKINS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5345-04T55345-04T5

ROBERT L. JENKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: June 6, 2006 - Decided June 23, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Department of Corrections, Number 291046/605567A.

Robert L. Jenkins, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Walter C. Kowalski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Robert L. Jenkins, an inmate at South Woods State Prison, appeals from a disciplinary decision based upon a new hearing required by our remand in an unpublished opinion filed on March 24, 2005, under docket number A-5999-03. As a result of the new hearing, the prison authorities sustained the charge of possessing an unauthorized item in violation of prohibited act .210, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). The object involved was an altered razor. On remand, the disciplinary charge was amended from possession of a weapon, prohibited act *.202.

The sanction imposed for the finding on the amended charge was fifteen days of detention, sixty days' loss of commutation time, and ninety days of administrative segregation with credit for time served. On the inmate's internal appeal, the hearing officer's decision was upheld.

Our remand of the matter in the prior appeal was based upon the determination that the inmate had not been accorded an adequate opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and that the first decision contained no statement or entry from which we might conclude that the right to cross-examine was limited for good and ample reason. Our review of the record made subsequently, in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards, discloses that, in the new hearing, the inmate was afforded all the process due him.

Accordingly, we affirm the hearing officer's decision of May 24, 2005, as upheld by the assistant superintendent on May 31, 2005.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5345-04T5

June 23, 2006