Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Malachi v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


May 21, 2008

JERMAINE MALACHI, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

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

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 5, 2008

Before Judges Collester and C.S. Fisher.

Appellant Jermaine Malachi is an inmate currently serving a seven-year term at East Jersey State Prison. Appellant was found to have committed disciplinary offense *.154, tampering with or blocking any locking device, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. As a result of that determination, appellant was given detention with credit for time served, meaning that he would not be required to serve any further time in detention.

The record reveals that appellant was found to have violated the disciplinary rule at a hearing that afforded him with all the process due under the circumstances. The hearing officer found credible the correction officer's version that appellant grabbed the mess hall exit gate and swung it open with enough force to knock out its locking pin.

In this appeal, appellant presents only the following argument:

THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHERE THE FINDING OF GUILT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15.

We only intervene in such matters 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). Upon a thorough examination of the record, we are satisfied that there was substantial evidence to support the findings in question, and that the determination that appellant violated the disciplinary rule in question is entitled to our deference.

Affirmed.

20080521

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.