MAURICE RAGLAND, Petitioner- v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5986-04T55986-04T5

MAURICE RAGLAND,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

_____________________________

 

Submitted April 25, 2006 - Decided June 21, 2006

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from a Final Agency decision of the

Department of Corrections.

Maurice Ragland, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Maurice Ragland is an inmate incarcerated at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton serving an eighteen-year sentence with a nine-year mandatory minimum for kidnapping, burglary, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, criminal restraint and terroristic threats. In February 2004, he had an annual classification review, at which time he requested a reduction in his custody status from "medium" to "gang minimum." His request was denied by the Department of Corrections (DOC) based on N.J.A.C. 10A:9-2.12(a)(2), which states that an inmate cannot be assigned to a custody status less than "medium" if he has a "non-permissible" detainer pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6.

The detainer against Ragland resulted from his conviction in the State of Louisiana for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced on October 17, 1996, to a five-year probationary term with a monetary obligation of $750 as a condition. On December 21, 1999, a warrant for Ragland's arrest was issued by Louisiana authorities for violation of probation based on his failure to meet this condition. On May 4, 2000, Louisiana lodged a detainer with the New Jersey Department of Corrections. This detainer is a not "permissible detainer" because it is not an "open" detainer which is one relating to an open charge, but rather a detainer following an adjudication and thereby "non-permissible." Moreover, because the detainer is for violation of probation it cannot be resolved under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, which addresses only detainers on untried criminal cases. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6(n); N.J.A.C. 10A:10-4.3(a)(4).

Defendant's appeal from the denial of gang minimum status is based on the following argument:

THE FINAL AGENCY DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DENYING MY APPLICATION FOR REDUCED CUSTODY STATUS SHOULD BE REVERSED, BECAUSE, THE ADMINISTRATION ARBITRARILY AND INCORRECTLY APPLIED N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.6(n), TO PROHIBIT ME FROM RECEIVING REDUCED CUSTODY STATUS, THUS VIOLATING MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

Ragland argues that at his initial classification hearing in 2000 as well as his classification review hearings in 2001 and 2002, he was advised that he could not reduce his custody status until he served his mandatory minimum sentence because of the Louisiana detainer. However, he asserts that during the 2003 classification review hearing he was told by an assistant administrator that upon serving another year on his mandatory minimum sentence, he would be granted gang minimum status. He argues that his right of due process has been violated and that he is being punished for being indigent since he is unable to pay the $750 to satisfy the Louisiana detainer because of his current incarceration.

Ragland concedes that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.2, a reduction in custody status is a privilege, not a right, and that prisoners have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in a reduced custody status. See Moore v. Department of Corrections, 335 N.J. Super. 103, 109 (App. Div. 2000); Muhammad v. Balicki, 327 N.J. Super. 369, 378 (App. Div. 2000). Since he is not entitled to a change in status, the decision of the DOC to deny him a reduced custody status does not violate his constitutional right of due process.

We will not interfere with the classification of prisoners to a restricted or reduced custody status by the DOC absent a showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). Ragland makes no such showing. Moreover, we note that the classification procedure is for an annual review of an inmate's status and, therefore, the determination denying Ragland reduced status was not final or immutable. See Smith v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections, 346 N.J. Super. 24, 32 (App. Div. 2001). Accordingly, we assume then the matter of the unsatisfied monetary obligation resulting in a violation of probation charge in Louisiana and Ragland's asserted inability to satisfy the financial penalty will be considered along with other relevant factors in determining Ragland's custodial status at subsequent review hearings.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5986-04T5

June 21, 2006