SHAWN LEE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4295-04T5

SHAWN LEE #138290/134528C,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

Text Box
 
 

____________________________________________________________

Text Box
 
January 5, 2006
Text Box
 
 

Submitted December 8, 2005 Decided

Before Judges Stern and Parker.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

Shawn Lee, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New
Jersey, attorney for respondent;
Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Lisa A. Puglisi,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Shawn Lee appeals from a disciplinary adjudication by the Department of Corrections (DOC). We affirm.
Petitioner is currently serving a four-year sentence. On January 1, 2005, a group of inmates at Bayside State Prison staged a gang-like attack on the corrections officers. When the riot was finally quelled and the corrections officers were trying to separate the non-participants from the rioters, a number of inmates refused to comply with orders to return to their bed areas and lie on their bunks. Those who remained in the area, including petitioner, were handcuffed and escorted to the infirmary where twenty-seven inmates and twenty-nine officers were being treated for injuries arising out of the riot. Petitioner was charged with disciplinary infraction *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.
A hearing was initially scheduled for January 10, 2005, but was twice adjourned to allow the hearing officer to obtain further information and review the area where the riot occurred. On January 19, the hearing proceeded with the reports of the officers and identification of petitioner as one of the non-compliant inmates. He was adjudicated guilty of the infraction and sanctioned 15 days detention, 365 days loss of commutation credit and 365 days administrative segregation. The Commissioner affirmed the hearing officer's decision and petitioner appealed, arguing:
POINT ONE
THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND SHOULD BE VACATED.

(a) The decision of the Hearing Officer Should be Vacated Because the Decision was not Based Upon Substantial Credible Evidence.

POINT TWO
 
THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION FAILED TO ARTICULATE FACTS ESTABLISHING APPELLANT'S GUILT.
 
We have carefully considered the record in light of petitioner's arguments and the applicable law. We are satisfied that petitioner's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Nevertheless, we add the following comments.
The standard adjudication form was used, and the hearing officer found that petitioner was positively identified by the officers involved in the melee, despite petitioner's claim that "he was picked from his bunk" and "had nothing to do with the disturbance." The adjudication form states that the reports of the numerous officers involved demonstrated that petitioner "was seen in the dayroom after inmates had been ordered to their bunks as a number of others had been assaulted. Under those conditions, the presence of additional inmates in the dayroom was a distraction, and created more of a security problem during the disturbance."

Text Box
 
 
Our scope of review of a final decision rendered by an administrative agency is limited to a determination of "'whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record' considering 'the proofs as a whole' with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge their credibility." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)). We may not engage in an independent assessment of the evidence. In re Taylor, supra, 158 N.J. at 656. Consequently, when there is credible evidence to support the agency's findings, we must uphold those findings even though we might have reached a different result. Id. at 657. The evidence here clearly supports the DOC's findings.
Affirmed.

A-