CHARLES FREEMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2497-05T52497-05T5

CHARLES FREEMAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

____________________________

 

Submitted September 26, 2006 - Decided October 10, 2006

Before Judges Axelrad and Gilroy.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Charles Freeman, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dewan N. Arefin, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is a prison disciplinary appeal. Petitioner, Charles Freeman, an inmate currently incarcerated at Bayside State Prison, Leesburg, appeals from the final decision of the Department of Corrections (Department), finding him guilty of committing prohibitive act *.203, "possession or introduction of any prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate by the medical or dental staff." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).

On December 16, 2005, petitioner received a disciplinary report, charging him with committing prohibitive act *.203, by possessing a plastic soda bottle filled with a suspected alcoholic beverage. A disciplinary hearing was conducted on December 20, 2005. At the hearing, petitioner requested, and was granted, a counsel substitute. Petitioner was permitted to make a statement and present evidence in defense of the charge. Petitioner, however, did not request any witnesses to testify on his behalf, nor did he cross-examine any of the Department's witnesses. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the hearing officer found petitioner guilty of the prohibited act, and imposed sanctions of ten days' detention, ninety days' administrative segregation, ninety days' loss of commutation time, 180 days' urine monitoring, and permanent loss of contact visits. On an administrative appeal, the finding of guilt was upheld, but the sanctions were modified to: five days' detention (suspended thirty days), thirty days' loss of commutation time (suspended thirty days), 180 days' urine monitoring, and permanent loss of contact visits.

On appeal, petitioner argues: 1) that he was denied due process because evidence relied upon by the hearing officer was not disclosed to petitioner prior to the hearing; 2) the Department failed to have a chemical analysis made of the beverage; and 3) the Department failed to properly establish the chain of custody of the bottle and liquid substance contained therein.

We have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). The decision of the Department is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the administrative record. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). Moreover, petitioner was accorded the appropriate safeguards and protections during the procedure in accordance with Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522-30 (1975).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2497-05T5

 

October 10, 2006