RASHON JONES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

RASHON JONES,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________

November 23, 2015

Submitted November 10, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Leone.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Rashon Jones, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicole Adams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Rashon Jones appeals from a May 13, 2014 final disciplinary decision of the Department of Corrections. We affirm.

Jones, a New Jersey State Prison inmate serving a life sentence for murder, was charged with committing prohibited act *.009, by possessing or using a cell phone. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Corrections officers found the phone in the possession of another inmate housed on the same unit as Jones. A confidential investigation revealed that the other inmate had been allowing fellow prisoners to use his cell phone. A search of the phone's call history, and subscriber information obtained from the cell phone service provider, revealed that the phone had been used to make several calls to Jones's girlfriend, Ms. Maddox, who was on Jones's list of approved visitors. Based on that evidence, prison officials inferred that Jones had borrowed the phone from his fellow inmate and used it to call Maddox.

At his disciplinary hearing, Jones declined to call any witnesses in his defense or to cross-examine any adverse witnesses. However, he testified on his own behalf, stating that he never possessed the phone and did not use it to call anyone. Jones contended that someone else must have used the phone to call his girlfriend, without his knowledge. The disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) did not find his testimony credible, particularly in the absence of any explanation as to how the other inmate could have obtained Jones's girlfriend's phone number. The DHO found that Jones used the cell phone. Based on the prison's zero tolerance policy for illicit cell phones, the DHO imposed discipline of 10 days detention, 80 days administrative segregation, 180 days loss of commutation credits, 180 days loss of telephone privileges, and permanent loss of contact visit privileges. On Jones's administrative appeal, the associate prison administrator upheld the finding of a *.009 violation and approved the discipline imposed.

Our review of the agency's decision is limited. We owe deference to the DHO's credibility determinations, as adopted by the associate prison administrator. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999); Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). We will not disturb the agency's decision so long as it is supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with applicable law. See Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191-92 (App. Div. 2010). On this appeal, Jones contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the factual finding that he used his fellow inmate's cell phone. We cannot agree. We owe deference to the DHO's credibility determination, which she logically explained. The agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and we therefore affirm.

Affirmed.