MICHAEL L. MARTIN v. N.J. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5949-07T15949-07T1

MICHAEL L. MARTIN,

Appellant,

v.

N.J. DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________________________________

 

Submitted June 30, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Wefing.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Michael L. Martin, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Keith S. Massey, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Martin, an inmate in the New Jersey prison system, appeals from a final decision of respondent Department of Corrections, which adjudicated him guilty of prohibited act *.803/*.704, attempting to perpetrate frauds or deceptions, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1, and imposed a sanction of 15 days detention, 365 days loss of commutation credit, and 365 days administrative segregation for this prohibited act. The fraud or deception consisted of appellant labeling outgoing correspondence to his brother that contained song lyrics as "legal mail." The apparent motive for this mis-labeling was to save the charge for postage. Appellant pled guilty to the charge but argued that it should be dismissed nevertheless. A hearing officer issued a written decision sustaining the charge, and this decision was upheld by the Associate Prison Administrator in an internal administrative appeal.

On appeal, appellant presents the following arguments:

POINT I: THE SEIZURE OF INMATE MARTIN

OUTGOING MAIL AS CONTRABAND

VIOLATED HIS FIRST AND FOURTH

AMENDMENTS UNITED STATES CONSTI-

TUTIONAL RIGHTS, IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE, THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED

SHOULD BE REVERSED.

POINT II: THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED SHOULD BE

REVERSED FOR DUE PROCESS VIOLA-

TIONS WHICH LED TO A FORCED

CONFESSION AND I[T] IMPOSED A

GRIEVOUS LOST AND PREJUDICE TO

THE DEFENSE OF INMATE MARTIN.

POINT III: THE SANCTIONS OF RESOLUTION AND

THE CHARGE OF FRAUD AND DECEPTION

SHOULD BE REVERSED BASED ON MIS-

INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS.

Appellant's arguments are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5949-07T1

July 27, 2009