JAHA GORSUCH v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5527-04T25527-04T2

JAHA GORSUCH,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________________________

 

Submitted December 7, 2005 - Decided January 27, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Fuentes.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision

of the Department of Corrections.

Jaha Gorsuch, 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 Jaha Gorsuch is an inmate incarcerated at Northern State Prison. He is serving a five-year sentence with a three-year period of parole ineligibility. Petitioner appeals from the final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), upholding the sanctions imposed at a disciplinary hearing based on the determination that he escaped by violating the rules governing his placement at a half-way house, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).

We gather the following facts from the record presented on appeal. On March 16, 2005, petitioner was residing at The Kintock Group, Kiawah House/Gertrude Gilliam Treatment Center, a half-way house located in the City of Newark. On this date, at approximately 11:03 a.m., petitioner signed out of this facility to report to his job at the Franklin Care Center, located in Franklin Park, a section of Franklin Township, in Somerset County.

Petitioner's Case Manager, Harold Simpson, called the Franklin Care Center at approximately 3:00 p.m. that same day and was advised by the receptionist that petitioner's supervisor no longer worked there. Upon Simpson's request to be transferred to the department where petitioner worked, he was transferred to the "linen department," where "an unidentified female" told him that petitioner does not work in this department.

Simpson reported this incident to employment counselor Carol James. At approximately 4:15 p.m., James spoke to an "unidentified employee" at the Dietary Department of the Franklin Care Center, who advised her that facility records indicated petitioner reported to work at 1:00 p.m. but was not present when this employee arrived at 4:00 p.m. This individual also confirmed that petitioner's supervisor was no longer employed at the Care Center.

Based on this information, the staff at the half-way house concluded that petitioner had violated the rules governing his stay at this facility, and notified law enforcement authorities that petitioner had been placed on "escape status." The report documenting this incident also indicates that "[n]o record was found that inmate was admitted to the hospital."

The following day, March 17, 2005, at 12:26 a.m., petitioner returned to the half-way house. At 1:26 a.m., petitioner was remanded to the custody of the DOC. Petitioner received formal written notice of the charge against him, and was given an opportunity to present a defense at an administrative hearing. Petitioner's written explanation for the incident alleged that he had been out on a smoke break when the call came in as to his whereabouts.

The hearing officer found petitioner guilty of escape by violating the conditions of his placement at the half-way house. He rejected petitioner's explanation for his failure to report his whereabouts. The hearing officer also found that petitioner had "fabricated documents," listing his girlfriend's cellular telephone number as his work number at the Franklin Learning Center, as part of a failed attempt to conceal his absence from the job site.

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 conclusion that petitioner violated his half-way house status is well-supported by the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(D). We discern no legal basis to disturb it.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5527-04T2

January 27, 2006