DARRYL WEST v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5675-04T5A-5675-04T5

DARRYL WEST,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted May 24, 2006 - Decided August 14, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Alley.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Darryl West, appellant, submitted a brief pro se.

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

PER CURIAM

Darryl West, an inmate currently incarcerated at Northern State Prison, Newark, New Jersey, appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections imposing sanctions for committing prohibited act *.258, refusing to submit to testing for prohibited substances, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.

West was ordered to submit a urine sample as a result of a controlled dangerous substance ("CDS") being found in his cell. Ultimately, a hearing was held and his counsel substitute claimed that "Sgt. Sorbino was not familiar with the urine sample policy, and [Sgt. Sorbino] violated that policy." He did not however, avail himself of the right to call witnesses or to confront and cross-examine witnesses. He was found guilty of prohibited act *.258, and sanctioned fifteen days of detention, with credit for time served, one hundred eighty days of commutation time, one hundred eighty days of urine monitoring, one hundred days of administrative segregation, and a permanent loss of contact visits. West appealed. On May 12, 2005, an Assistant Superintendent upheld this determination.

In this case, there is ample evidence of guilt. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995). Unless we find that the action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency ruling should not be set aside. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999).

While West asserts, for example, that he was not entitled to present at the adjudication hearing his "version of the facts[,]" he provided both a written and a verbal statement and his counsel also gave a verbal statement in West's defense. Notwithstanding these statements, there was substantial evidence to support West's guilt on the *.258 charge.

The points made by West, including the ones we have cited, have no merit. Therefore the decision by the Department of Corrections is affirmed. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D),(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-A-5675-04T5

August 14, 2006