CHAD RANDOLPH 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5737-05T35737-05T3

CHAD RANDOLPH,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 28, 2007 - Decided April 9, 2007

Before Judges C.S. Fisher and Yannotti.

On appeal from a final decision of the Department of Corrections.

Chad Randolph, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Thomas E. Kemble, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant is an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, having been sentenced in 2003 to a fifteen-year term for aggravated manslaughter. He appeals a final decision of the Department of Corrections that found he had violated prohibited act *202, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1, possession or introduction of a weapon. Because the Department's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but was based upon substantial credible evidence, we affirm.

Appellant argues there was inadequate evidence in the record to support the finding of an infraction. Our standard of review prevents our intervention in such matters except when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). Substantial evidence is defined as "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." In re Application of Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956).

Here, the hearing officer was provided with eyewitness evidence that appellant was observed digging in a particular area in the "big yard." After "last call," three corrections officers, who had observed appellant's conduct, went to the location where appellant and another inmate were seen digging and uncovered a seven-inch sharpened tool. Appellant asserted that he did not bury the tool but instead had been playing cards and was digging in the area because he was looking for rocks to place on the cards because it was windy. The hearing officer rejected appellant's contentions and relied upon the evidence provided by the corrections officers. The hearing officer also observed that a videotape revealed appellant and another inmate "reaching to the ground behind the bench" where they were playing cards, although the hearing officer also concluded that "due to the camera's angle it can't be determined exactly . . . what the inmates were doing."

The hearing officer was entitled to rely upon the substantial evidence provided by the corrections officers, which demonstrated that appellant had buried a sharpened tool in the prison yard, and the Department was entitled to adopt those findings in reviewing the hearing officer's decision. In considering this final agency decision, and after carefully reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the substantial evidence provided by the corrections officers was more than adequate to support the finding of a disciplinary infraction. Accordingly, we conclude that the Department's decision is not arbitrary or capricious and is entitled to our deference.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5737-05T3

April 9, 2007