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.

Adams v. Dep't of Corrections

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


February 17, 2009

AARON ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

On appeal from the Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted January 28, 2009

Before Judges Cuff and King.

This is a pro se appeal from a prison disciplinary decision. Appellant inmate pled guilty to one charge, escape (*.101), and was found guilty by a hearing officer of *.009 charge, misuse or possession of electronic equipment, a cell phone, not authorized for use or retention by an inmate. On the escape charge, the hearing officer imposed ninety days loss of commutation credit. On the cell phone possession charge, the hearing officer imposed 365 days loss of commutation credit, 365 days loss of phone privileges, and permanent loss of contact visits. The administrator modified the sanctions to 180 days loss of commutation credit, 365 days loss of phone privileges suspended for sixty days, and permanent loss of contact visits.

On this appeal the appellant makes two claims:

POINT I - UNTIMELY DELIVERY OF PAPERWORK NOTIFYING THE APPELLANT OF HIS INSTITUTIONAL CHARGES DENIED HIM RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS, AND INTERFERED WITH HIS ABILITY TO MOUNT A DEFENSE AGAINST THE OFFENSES CHARGED.

POINT II - DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S DENIAL WITH APPELLANT' REQUEST TO DISMISS THE INMATE PARALEGAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ASSIGN NEW INMATE PARALEGAL DENIED THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

This record certainly does not lead us to the conclusion that the defense was hampered by late notice. Nor is there a shred of any suggestion as to how the defense was prejudiced or compromised by late notice of the charges or any deficiency in appellant's representation. Indeed, the timeliness of the service of the charges was not even raised at the administrative level. We also observe that the appellant was shown leniency on the administrative appeal by a modification of sanction and no imposition of administrative segregation. We find the appeal completely without merit and no further discussion is necessary. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

20090217

© 1992-2009 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.