July 11, 2008
CARL PIERCE, APPELLANT,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
On appeal from Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted June 24, 2008
Before Judges Skillman and Winkelstein.
Appellant Carl Pierce appeals from a final decision of respondent Department of Corrections, which adjudicated that he had committed disciplinary infractions .701, the unauthorized use of mail or telephone; .702, unauthorized contacts with the public; *803/*.002, attempting to commit an assault or assaulting a person; and *.005, threatening bodily harm. These disciplinary infractions were based on appellant's placing three-way telephone calls to persons outside East Jersey State Prison soliciting the commission of an aggravated assault upon a person outside the prison in exchange for the payment of $2,000 and threatening to kill numerous other persons upon his release from prison.
Appellant presents the following arguments:
I. APPELLANT PIERCE WAS DENIED HIS FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, WHEN THE HEARING OFFICER ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY DENIED HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROTECTED RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE ANY/ALL STATE WITNESSES THAT ARE AGAINST HIM AND OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROTECTED RIGHT TO CALL ANY/ALL DEFENSE WITNESSES WHO MAY DESIRE TO TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF.
II. APPELLANT PIERCE WAS DENIED HIS FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS WHEN THE HEARING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE CRITICAL TO THE DEFENSE AND BLATANTLY DENIED TO DISCLOSE THE NAME OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM TO APPELLANT.
Appellant's arguments are clearly without merit and only warrant brief discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Although appellant claims he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the proposed target of the aggravated assault he solicited, appellant declined the opportunity to confront/cross-examine adverse witnesses. In any event, the proposed target was not a witness to the disciplinary infractions. The primary evidence of those infractions was a tape recording of the telephone conversations in which appellant solicited the commission of the aggravated assaults and threatened to kill other persons.
Appellant has not presented any argument regarding the admission of the tape recording into evidence or his opportunity to rebut that evidence. We also note that the investigatory reports appellant alleges were not provided to him essentially summarized the contents of the tape recording that was played at the administrative hearing.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.