On appeal from Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 6, 2008
Before Judges Lisa and Lihotz.
In this prison disciplinary appeal, inmate Thomas J. Gerrard appeals from a final agency decision of respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing disciplinary sanctions for committing prohibited acts .701, unauthorized use of mail or telephone and .702, unauthorized contacts with the public in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Gerrard admits he used the inmate personal identification number (IPIN) of another inmate to call the inmate's grandmother. According to Gerrard, his friend, Rahee White, requested Gerrard call White's grandmother to explain that White was in detention for possessing a photograph of a female corrections officer and would be transferred to another prison. After Gerrard's call, White's relative visited the prison and expressed concern for White's safety prompting an investigation and transfer of the female guard.
During the proceeding before Hearing Officer (HO) Morales, Gerrard requested and was permitted confrontation of Investigator Gregory Riggs. Gerrard's examination challenged whether inmates were informed that one inmate is prohibited from using the IPIN of another, with permission.
HO Marales determined Gerrard was guilty of both offenses and recommended sanctions of fifteen-days' detention, ninety-days' administrative segregation, sixty-days' loss of commutation credit, and ninety-days' loss of phone privileges. Assistant Administrator Davis upheld the HO's determination and sanctions.
On appeal Gerrard presents these arguments for our review:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS VIOLATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT N.J.S.A. 52:14B IN DETERMINING APPELLANT'S GUILT TO A NONEXISTENT RULE AND IN DOING SO VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR HEARING AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED GUILT ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED ANY WRITTEN RULE.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS UPHELD A SANCTION ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED ANY PUBLISHED RULE IN VIOLATION OF THE ...