ALLAN TUTTLE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSAnnotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-1086-07T21086-07T2
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Submitted May 12, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Stern and Collester.
On appeal from a Final Agency Decision
of the Department of Corrections.
Allan Tuttle, appellant pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen M. Hale,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Petitioner Allan Tuttle, an inmate currently incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton serving a life term, appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections imposing disciplinary sanctions upon him for committing prohibited act *.751, the giving or offering any official or staff member a bribe or anything of value in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Tuttle received the sanction of credit for time served, 180 days of administrative segregation, and 180 days loss of commutation time. He appeals the final administrative decision as to both the guilty finding and the sanctions.
The testimony before the hearing officer was that on September 23, 2007, Tuttle and another inmate offered Senior Correction Officer Schuyler "anything he wanted from the commissary (candies, soda, cigarettes) if he would transport 50 to 60 packages of cigarettes to another inmate on the 2C housing unit." Schuyler immediately charged Tuttle and the other inmate with a *.751 charge. Tuttle was represented at the hearing by counsel substitute. He asserted that he was acting as a translator when asking Schuyler if he would deliver cigarettes to housing unit 2C. The hearing officer adjudicated Tuttle guilty, finding that although Tuttle may have been interpreting for the other inmate, he was nonetheless in violation of the prohibited act.
After review of the record we find that Tuttle received all of the procedural due process to which he was entitled under McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 202 (1995) and Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 552 (1975). We further find that the adjudication of defendant's guilt of the prohibited act was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995). The arguments made by Tuttle are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
June 3, 2008