LLOYD BLAIR v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1125-05T11125-05T1

LLOYD BLAIR,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 28, 2006 - Decided December 15, 2006

Before Judges Skillman and Lisa.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Lloyd Blair, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Lloyd Blair, a New Jersey State Prison inmate, appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections adjudicating him guilty of committing prohibited act *.207, possession of money or currency (in excess of $50.00) unless specifically authorized, see N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), and imposing sanctions of detention, with credit for time served, loss of ninety days commutation time, and confiscation and donation of the money to the victims fund. We affirm.

An envelope was returned to Northern State Prison, where appellant was then confined, for insufficient postage. Appellant's name and the address of Northern State Prison were written on the envelope as the return address, thus designating appellant as the sender. The envelope contained $100 in currency. The addressee on the envelope could not be ascertained because the "Return to Sender" sticker affixed by the postal authorities covered it.

When appellant was shown the envelope and asked whether it was his, he denied all knowledge of it. During the investigation, appellant gave a statement that a friend of his sent the letter to another friend to send flowers to appellant's wife at her job, and in the process appellant's address was placed on the envelope to show that the money came from him. At the disciplinary hearing, appellant gave a third version, that he had someone on the street mail money to his wife, and that person put appellant's address on the envelope so she would know it was from him.

With the assistance of counsel substitute, appellant declined the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him and he presented no witnesses or witness statements. Based upon the reports of the correction officers, the hearing officer found that appellant sent the envelope containing $100 in currency from the prison, with his return address, and it was returned for insufficient postage. She implicitly rejected as incredible appellant's contrary contention. She ordered the sanctions we previously mentioned. Appellant filed an administrative appeal, and on September 15, 2005, the Administrator of Northern State Prison upheld the hearing officer's decision. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the record contains insufficient evidence to support the adjudication. We disagree. The reports relied upon by the hearing officer and the Administrator provide the required "substantial" evidence to support a disciplinary violation. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995); N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). The administrative authorities found credible that the envelope was returned by the postal authorities bearing appellant's name as the return addressee, with the Northern State Prison address as the return address, as reflected in the reports. In light of appellant's conflicting statements regarding the envelope, the administrative authorities did not believe the version of the events he related at his disciplinary hearing. Instead, based upon the facts established by the reports, they drew the logical inference that appellant had indeed possessed the currency while in the prison and mailed it with insufficient postage.

The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with all applicable due process requirements. See Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). The final administrative decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, see Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), and we have no occasion to set it aside. Appellant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1125-05T1

December 15, 2006