CARNELL GIBBS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

CARNELL GIBBS,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________

December 9, 2015

Submitted November 16, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Carroll.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Carnell Gibbs, appellant pro se.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant Carnell Gibbs appeals from the June 4, 2014 final agency decision of respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), which affirmed the decision of a hearing officer finding Gibbs guilty of, and imposing disciplinary sanctions for, the following prohibited acts under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)

*.009: misuse, possession, distribution, sale, or intent to distribute or sell, an electronic communication device, equipment or peripheral that is capable of transmitting, receiving or storing data and/or electronically transmitting a message, image or data that is not authorized for use or retention;

.802/.752: attempting to give money or anything of value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, another inmate;

.802/.754: attempting to give money or anything of value to, or accepting money or anything of value from, another inmate's family or another inmate's friend with an intent to circumvent any correctional facility or Departmental rule, regulation or policy or with an intent to further an illegal or improper purpose;

*.803/*.215: possession with intent to distribute or sell prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants or related paraphernalia; and

*.803/*.751: giving or offering any official or staff member a bribe or anything of value.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

Gibbs is serving a seventy-year term of imprisonment with forty-seven years of parole ineligibility for convictions for murder, criminal attempt and unlawful possession of a weapon. He is presently incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP).

In April 2012, the DOC's Special Investigations Division (SID) at NJSP began a two-year investigation regarding a conspiracy to obtain contraband, such as drugs and cellphones, through compromised NJSP staff. The conspiracy included money laundering and prison staff corruption. The SID investigation revealed that Gibbs possessed a cellphone that was confiscated from inmate Lumumba and used the cellphone to call his associates; conspired with a civilian to transfer money to a friend of Lumumba and to inmate Dennis; engaged in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics at NJSP; and conspired with other inmates and civilians to bribe a corrections officer.

On April 9, 2014, the DOC served Gibbs with the disciplinary report for each charge. Hearings on each charge began on April 23, 2014. Gibbs pled not guilty and requested and received counsel substitute, who requested leniency. Gibbs submitted a written statement, declined the opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf, and requested and was granted the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses. Gibbs was provided with a summary of information about the charges and was afforded the opportunity to review the adjudication report and all evidence considered by the hearing officer. The evidence included records of the cellphone calls and letters authored by Gibbs and signed with Gibbs' alias, "C-Nell." The letters contained evidence of the smuggling of drugs into the prison and evidence there was a corrupt corrections officer within the prison. Gibbs admitted to authoring one of the letters.

After reviewing the evidence, the hearing officer found Gibbs guilty of the above-mentioned charges and, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15, issued a concise summary of the facts supporting each charge. Based on the serious nature of the charges, the hearing officer imposed the following sanctions: (1) *.009: 10 days' detention with credit for time served, 365 days' administrative segregation, 356 days' loss of commutation time and permanent loss of contact visits; (2) .802/.752: a consecutive 10 days' detention with credit for time served, 90 days' administrative segregation and 60 days' loss of commutations; (3) .802/.754: a consecutive 10 days' detention with credit for time served, 90 days' administrative segregation and 60 days' loss of commutation time; (4) *.803/*.215: time served in detention, 365 administrative segregation, 365 days' loss of commutation time, permanent loss of contact visits and 365 days' urine monitoring; and (5) *.803/*.751: time served in detention, 365 days' administrative segregation and 365 days' loss of commutation time, consecutive to the other sanctions.

On May 14, 2014, Gibbs administratively appealed the hearing officer's decision. On June 4, 2014, the Associate Administrator issued a final decision affirming the hearing officer's decision. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Gibbs contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt on the charges. We disagree.

"[We] have 'a limited role' in the review of [agency] decisions." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). "[A] 'strong presumption of reasonableness attaches to [an agency decision].'" In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div.) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993), aff d, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85 (2001). We reverse an agency's decision only where it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or unsupported by credible evidence in the record. Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579-80; Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005). An adjudication of guilt of a charge against an inmate must be supported by "substantial evidence." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). The term has also been defined as "evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action." McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002).

We have considered Gibbs' contention in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude it is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We are satisfied that Gibbs was afforded all due process protections required by Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 525-33 (1975); that the hearing officer's decision, including the sanctions imposed, was based on substantial evidence that Gibbs committed the prohibited acts; and that the DOC's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Affirmed.