MARK GRAHAM 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3126-04T33126-04T3

MARK GRAHAM,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

Submitted February 1, 2006 - Decided February 16, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from a decision of the Department of Corrections.

Mark Graham, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Mark Graham is an inmate at Northern State Prison in Newark serving a twenty-year term, with a ten-year mandatory minimum for, among other things, manslaughter and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. He appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) dated January 28, 2005, which affirmed a decision of the Security Threat Group Management Unit Committee that appellant's placement in the Unit was warranted. On appeal, he argues:

DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF THE LAW WERE IMPINGED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SECURITY THREAT GROUP MANAGEMENT UNIT PLACEMENT HEARING COMMITTEE.

We have carefully considered appellant's arguments in light of the existing law. We find his arguments to be without merit and do not warrant extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D)&(E). We add only the following.

As a result of gang violence in New Jersey prisons, the DOC created the Security Threat Group Management Unit. Blyther v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 322 N.J. Super. 56, 59 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999). The Unit is a "non-punitive, three-phase program designed to identify, place and rehabilitate inmates deemed to be core members of certain designated gangs." Id. at 59-60.

Appellant was considered to be a core member of a gang known as the Five Percent Nation. On December 22, 2004, he was served with a notice of Security Threat Group membership hearing, after he had been identified as a member of the Five Percent Nation gang. Appellant had two prior placements in the Unit, in 1998 and 2003.

In August 2004, while he was incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, appellant was found guilty of, and sanctioned for, committing prohibited act *.011, possession or exhibition of anything related to a security threat group. The incident arose when several letters that referenced the Five Percent Nation were discovered in his cell in a plastic bin.

Based on that incident, appellant was provided a hearing before the Security Threat Group Management Unit on December 23, 2004, where he was represented by a counsel substitute. He did not request witnesses or provide any written statements or other documentary evidence. The Committee determined that placement in the Unit program would benefit appellant.

We have examined the record and conclude that the findings by the Committee could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record. Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). The assignment of a prisoner to the Unit program "does not require the protection of the full panoply of rights attendant to criminal trials or even those rights attendant to disciplinary hearings." Blyther, supra, 322 N.J. Super. at 67. The placement in the Unit program is nonpunitive, "designed to anticipate and prevent potential threats to ordinary prison operation." Ibid. Here, appellant was afforded full process that was due to him. His arguments to the contrary are without merit. We do not find the agency's decision to have been arbitrary or capricious. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3126-04T3

February 16, 2006