March 27, 2009
LORENZO BARRENECHEA, APPELLANT,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
On appeal from the Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 4, 2009
Before Judges C.L. Miniman and King.
Appellant is serving a sentence in excess of twenty-eight years for narcotic convictions. He was charged and found guilty of a prison disciplinary infraction .703, conduct with a visitor in violation of regulations, see N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. He was warned by the officer when first observed but persisted in his conduct. He pled guilty to the charge. His sanction was ten days detention, 180 days loss of contact visits, and a ban for one year as to this particular visitor.
Appellant explained that he was with his girlfriend in the visitor's hall and was not engaged in any suspected sexual activity but was stroking his girlfriend's scar from recent abdominal surgery. The correction officer charged appellant with "hand in visitor's pants," and, as noted warned him, but he continued.
Appellant makes these claims of error in his pro se appeal which we replicate precisely as presented to us:
(1) Appellants sanctions should be reversed and dissmissed or modified since; a; Sanctions imposed are in violation of as established in 10a-4-5(b), (g), 4-9.15, and 10A-18-6-19(C). b; Sanctions are under the circumstances, facts and evidence disproportunate, cruel and unusual to the offence. c; Appellates sanctions extended over to visitor for additional 365 days expressing elements of double jeopardy and went behond the scope. d; The cumilitive effects of violations, errors and cruelness amounts to a shock of the conciouse mind and therefore, sanctions should be dismissed or modified.
(2) Appellate guilty plea should be reversed, reviewed and dismissed by Appellate Division since; a; Appellant pled guilty under a sense of duress. b; Appellants recognizes that he would have not received a fair and impartial hearing at courtline at E.J.S.P. due to what he witnessed during the hearing and said courtlines history of being unfair and partial.
(3) Appellants STATE ans FEDERAL rights to freedom of assosiation were violated and therefore Appellants sanction of loss of contact visits should be either modified or dissmissed.
Defendant pled guilty to the charges with an explanation -- that he simply was consoling his friend. We find no merit to the appeal. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). The disposition is well within the sound discretion of the institution and reasonably related to the security interests of the State prison. The procedure at the institutional hearing level conformed to all due process requirements. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975), codified at N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.