MICHAEL MITCHELL VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4890-17T2
MICHAEL MITCHELL,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted May 7, 2019 – Decided May 30, 2019
Before Judges Geiger and Enright.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Michael Mitchell, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Tasha M. Bradt, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Michael Mitchell appeals from the denial of his grievance
challenging the seizure of $3000 from his inmate account by the New Jersey
Department of Corrections (DOC) to satisfy a portion of his court ordered fines and
restitution. We affirm.
Tried to a jury, appellant was convicted of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A.
2C:15-1, and sentenced to a twenty-five-year prison term under the No Early Release
Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of
$19,046.88 to Liberty Mutual Insurance. On direct appeal, we affirmed appellant's
conviction, but remanded for resentencing within the standard ten to twenty-year
range for first-degree robbery because the State was barred from seeking a greater
extended prison term than it disclosed in the pretrial memorandum. State v.
Mitchell, No. A-0675-14 (App. Div. May 4, 2017) (slip op. at 2, 15-16). "We [left]
it to the [trial] court to determine, based on its application of the sentencing factors,
the appropriate sentence . . . within the regular range." Id. at 16. Appellant did not
argue the restitution award should be reversed, modified, or remanded. Id. at 5-6.
The Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Mitchell, 231 N.J. 153 (2017).
On remand, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing on August 9,
2017. Neither appellant nor his trial counsel sought any change in the restitution
obligation. Appellant was resentenced to a twenty-year NERA term. The trial court
A-4890-17T2
2
issued an amended judgment of conviction imposing the twenty-year NERA term
and the same $19,046.88 restitution obligation. Appellant did not appeal from his
resentencing.
Appellant is an inmate at South Woods State Prison (SWSP). On August 22,
2017, the DOC seized a $3000 civil lawsuit settlement check sent to appellant by his
attorney. The seized check was deposited into appellant's inmate account and
applied by the Business Office at SWSP to satisfy a portion of appellant's court
ordered fines and restitution.
Appellant challenged the seizure; the Business Office instructed appellant to
contact the Central Office Review Unit regarding the seizure of his funds. Appellant
grieved the seizure. The Offender Revenue Collection Unit informed appellant the
amended judgment of conviction obligated him to pay the restitution. He was further
advised that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-16.4 and N.J.A.C. 10A:2-2.2, the lawsuit
settlement funds were processed correctly by being used "to pay a portion of [his]
court ordered fines and restitutions." Accordingly, his request for a refund of the
$3000 seized was denied. Appellant sought an administrative appeal of that
decision. He was told there was no further administrative appeal process and the
seizure decision was final. This appeal followed.
A-4890-17T2
3
Appellant argues the DOC's seizure of his funds was illegal and its failure to
address the merits of his appeal renders the decision arbitrary and capricious. We
disagree.
Our remand for resentencing was limited to sentencing appellant within the
ordinary ten to twenty-year range for first-degree robbery. The trial court was not
directed to reconsider the restitution award. The restitution award was not
challenged by appellant during the resentencing hearing. The trial court included
the unchanged restitution obligation in the amended judgment of conviction.
Appellant did not appeal from the resentencing. The court-ordered restitution
obligation is thereby binding and the settlement funds on deposit in appellant's
inmate account must be applied to satisfy that obligation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-
16.4, which provides in pertinent part:
If an inmate is awarded a money judgment as the result of
a civil action, the monies derived from that judgment shall
be deposited in the inmate's account at the correctional
institution in which the inmate is confined. These monies
shall be used to satisfy any court-imposed fines, restitution
or penalties which the inmate has not met.
[Ibid. See also N.J.A.C. 10A:2-2.2(i).]
Deductions from inmate accounts "shall be made to pay . . . [c]ourt ordered
payments, penalty assessments, restitution, and fines. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-2.2(e)(1).
A-4890-17T2
4
The DOC cannot ignore or modify the restitution imposed by a judgment of
conviction.
The decision to seize the $3000 settlement funds derived from a civil lawsuit
was not illegal. Rather, it was lawful and statutorily mandated. The DOC explained
the factual and legal basis for the seizure. Its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Affirmed.
A-4890-17T2
5