JUSTICE R. ALLAH v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-2330-15T4

JUSTICE R. ALLAH,

        Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
______________________________

              Submitted April 25, 2018 – Decided May 21, 2018

              Before Judges Fuentes and Manahan.

              On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
              Corrections.

              Justice Rasideen Allah, appellant pro se.

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
              Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
              Matthew J. Lynch, Deputy Attorney General, on
              the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Justice Allah appeals from a final determination of the

Department      of   Corrections     (DOC),    adjudicating      him   guilty      of

disciplinary infraction *.803/*.102, aiding another person to
commit the act of attempting or planning an escape, in violation

of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).       Following our review of the record in

light of the applicable law, we affirm.

       Allah is an inmate currently incarcerated at New Jersey State

Prison in Trenton, New Jersey.            On September 17, 2015, another

inmate, Victor Hiatt, was found to be in possession of documents

that included handwritten notes and maps of escape routes.                    An

investigation revealed that Allah had authored the documents in

an attempt to aid Hiatt in his escape.

       On September 22, 2015, Allah was served with the *.803/*.102

charge.1   The charge was referred to a hearing officer for further

action.    The first scheduled hearing began on September 23, 2015,

and was postponed at the request of Allah.

       At the hearing, Allah was provided with the opportunity to

make   a   statement,   call   witnesses,     and     to    confront   adverse

witnesses.    Allah testified that he had nothing to do with Hiatt's

plan to escape and submitted a written statement in which he

claimed    that   someone   forged   the   letters.        Counsel-substitute



1
  Allah was also issued a disciplinary charge for .210, possession
of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by an inmate
or not issued to him through regular correctional facility
channels. This charge was downgraded to an on-the-spot correction.
Allah was sanctioned with the confiscation of his word processor,
which has since been returned. Due to the downgrade of the charge,
no record was kept of the adjudication and sanction.

                                      2                                A-2330-15T4
argued Allah did not author the escape plan.                      Allah also provided

a written statement from Hiatt in his defense stating Allah had

nothing    to    do    with    the    plans.       Although       provided      with   the

opportunity to do so, Allah declined to confront adverse witnesses.

     The    hearing      concluded        on     September        25,   2015.         After

considering      the    evidence       and     Allah's      arguments,    the     hearing

officer found Allah guilty of the *.803/*.102 charge.                           Allah was

sanctioned with 180 days' administrative segregation, 365 days'

loss of commutation time, and 30 days' loss of television.

     On    October      2,    2015,    Allah     administratively        appealed       the

decision    of    the   hearing       officer.         On   October     14,   2015,    the

associate       administrator         upheld     the     guilty     finding     and     the

imposition of sanctions.             This appeal followed.

     On appeal, Allah raises the following argument:

                                        POINT I

            THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DECISION OF
            OCTOBER   20,   2015[,]   WHICH   UPHELD   THE
            DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S SEPTEMBER 25,
            2015 GUILTY ADJUDICATIONS FOR VIOLATING
            PROHIBITED ACT [*].803/[*]102 AND [.]210,
            SHOULD BE REVERSED AS THESE ADJUDICATIONS WERE
            NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, AND
            IS   THEREFORE   ARBITRARY,   CAPRICIOUS,   OR
            UNREASONABLE. HENRY [V.] RAHWAY STATE PRISON,
            
81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) AND ALSO IN RE
            TAYLOR, 
158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999).

     Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency

is limited.      In re Taylor, 
158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Brady v. Bd.

                                             3                                    A-2330-15T4
of Review, 
152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).          We will not upset the

determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that

it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; that it lacked fair

support in the evidence; or that it violated legislative policies.

See In re Musick, 
143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996); Henry, 
81 N.J. at 579.

Further, decisions of administrative agencies carry with them a

strong presumption of reasonableness.      City of Newark v. Nat. Res.

Council, 
82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980).     We may not vacate an agency's

determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the

record may support more than one result.        See De Vitis v. N.J.

Racing Comm'n, 
202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div. 1985).          In

addition,

            [I]t is not our function to substitute our
            independent   judgment   for   that   of   an
            administrative body . . . where there may
            exist a mere difference of opinion concerning
            the evidential persuasiveness of the relevant
            proofs.   As a reviewing court, we will not
            weigh the evidence, determine the credibility
            of witnesses, draw inferences and conclusions
            from the evidence, or resolve conflicts
            therein.

            [Ibid. (citations omitted).]

     Predicated upon our review of the record in light of our

standard of review, we conclude there was substantial credible

evidence of appellant's guilt. Henry, 
81 N.J. at 580. Substantial

evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as


                                  4                            A-2330-15T4
adequate to support a conclusion." In re Application of Hackensack

Water Co., 
41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956).   The finding

of guilt was based upon the documentary evidence confirming the

escape plan was written in Allah's handwriting and that he was

housed in the same unit as Hiatt.

     We have considered the remaining argument raised by Allah

concerning the disciplinary charge and conclude that it is without

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.      R.

2:11-3(e)(2).

     Affirmed.




                                5                          A-2330-15T4