Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Lionell G. Miller v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

August 9, 2012

LIONELL G. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.



On appeal from New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 30, 2012

Before Judges Payne and Reisner.

Defendant, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals from the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, after a hearing at which he represented himself, for *.004, fighting; *.306, conduct that disrupts; and *.154, tampering with or blocking any locking device. As the result of the adjudications on these charges, defendant received for the *.154 charge 15 days of detention and 180 days of administrative segregation; for the *.004 and *.306 charges, he received 15 days of detention, 270 days of administrative segregation, 270 days' loss of commutation credits, and 30 days' loss of recreation privileges.

On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments:

APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS A RESULT OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO OFFER VIDEOTAPE EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE.

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S FINDING THAT APPELLANT TAMPERED WITH OR BLOCKED A LOCKING DEVICE THUS APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS.

APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS DUE TO THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S REJECTION OF HIS SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM.

APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS A RESULT OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW HIM TO ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS DURING CONFRONTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION.

APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS A RESULT OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW HIM TO PRESENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE.

We affirm.

I.

In his appellate brief, Miller claims that, on March 17, 2011, he was taking a shower in the administrative segregation unit of the prison, while watching the tier through a mirror to see that nobody went into his cell to steal or destroy his possessions. He contends that he was released from the shower by Corrections Officer Fraley. As Miller walked down the tier past the cell of inmate Johnson, whose cell door was open, Johnson accused Miller of writing remedy forms about him being given access to Miller's cell and possessions. When Miller denied doing so, Johnson came out of his cell ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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