MICHAEL BELLINO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0020-12T3

MICHAEL BELLINO,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

-

October 28, 2013

Submitted October 2, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Hoffman.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Michael Bellino, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim. Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Michael Bellino, a State Prison inmate, appeals from the March 15, 2012 final disciplinary decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his appeal of the hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of *.004, fighting with another person, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), and imposing disciplinary sanctions. We affirm.

The incident occurred just after midnight on March 7, 2012, at Bo Robinson House Assessment and Treatment Center in Trenton. On that date, inmate William Hockenberry sustained injuries to his face, including bruises, lacerations, and swelling around his right eye and was sent to the hospital. The same evening, Bellino also sustained injuries, including a laceration under his left eye, scratches on his left forearm, left flank, and right cheek.

An immediate investigation of the incident followed; both inmates denied fighting and Hockenberry claimed that he slipped in the bathroom, hitting his face on the sink. Staff member Cecil Rashford completed the investigation and determined that Bellino and Hockenberry had an argument over a floor cleaning detail in the bathroom, which led to a physical altercation where Bellino used a floor sign to hit Hockenberry in the face.

On the same day as the incident, the disciplinary investigation was completed and Bellino was served with disciplinary charge *.004, fighting with another person. The matter was referred to a hearing officer and a disciplinary hearing began the following day, concluding on March 13, 2012. After considering all of the evidence, the hearing officer found Bellino guilty and sanctioned him to fifteen days detention, with credit for time served; 180 days administrative segregation; and 180 days loss of commutation time.

Bellino filed an administrative appeal, and on March 15, 2012, Assistant Administrator Joseph A. Knowles upheld the hearing officer's decision. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Bellino argues the DOC final decision should be reversed because the hearing officer's decision violated due process. Specifically, Bellino claims that there is no substantial evidence that he was actually in a fight, and that staff wrongfully failed to present video recordings of the area where the fight allegedly occurred.

Our role in reviewing a decision of the DOC is limited. Decisions of administrative agencies are presumptively reasonable. Newark v. Natural Res. Council Dep't Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S. Ct. 400, 66 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1980). We will only reverse an agency's decision where it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

Bellino's claim that there is no substantial evidence that he was actually in a fight clearly lacks merit. The injuries sustained by both inmates represent compelling evidence Bellino was in a fight. The injuries were also inconsistent with the explanations offered by the inmates, which the hearing officer rejected.

Bellino's claim that he was denied due process by the hearing officer similarly lacks merit. Bellino requested the assistance of counsel substitute, which was granted. During the hearing, Bellino and counsel substitute were permitted to make a statement on Bellino's behalf. Bellino stated, "I have no knowledge of what happened." Bellino called inmate Eric Moore as a witness, who indicated that he and Bellino were working in the lecture hall after 11 p.m., and that Bellino was with him most of the night and not in any fight. Bellino was offered and declined the opportunity to cross-examine the adverse witness. Finally, the hearing officer afforded Bellino and his counsel substitute the opportunity to review the adjudication report and all other evidence considered.

Bellino argues further that the hearing officer denied him due process because she failed to view videos that could have supported his claim of innocence. This argument also lacks merit because he never made the request to the hearing officer. It is well established that issues that could have been raised, but were not, at the hearing or trial level should not be presented for appellate review "unless the matter involves the trial court's jurisdiction or is of public importance[.]" Alloway v. Gen. Marine Indus., L.P., 149 N.J. 620, 643 (1997) (quoting Nieder, supra, at 234); State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (reiterating the principle that an issue raised for the first time on appeal, absent an exception, should not be considered). No exception applies here.

Affirmed.