QUINCELL ADAMS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3469-17T4
QUINCELL ADAMS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted January 23, 2019 – Decided February 15, 2019
Before Judges Yannotti and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Quincell Adams, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Suzanne M. Davies,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Quincell Adams, an inmate in the State's correctional system, appeals
from a final determination of the New Jersey Department of Corrections
(NJDOC), which denied Adams's application for transfer to a halfway house in
a residential community release program (RCRP). We reverse and remand the
matter to the NJDOC for reconsideration and issuance of a new decision.
Adams is presently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison (SWSP) in
Bridgeton. He is serving a fifteen-year custodial sentence, with a mandatory
minimum term of twelve years, eight months, and twenty-nine days, as a result
of his conviction of conspiracy to commit murder and unlawful possession of a
handgun. He will become eligible for parole on September 12, 2019.
On October 18, 2017, Adams submitted an application for transfer to a
RCRP. The Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) at SWSP approved
Adams's application. However, by letter dated November 8, 2017, the NJDOC's
Office of Community Programs and Outreach Services (OCPOS) denied the
application based on the nature and seriousness of the offense for which Adams
was incarcerated.
In January or February 2018, Adams submitted another application for
transfer to a RCRP. The ICC approved the transfer. By letter dated March 9,
A-3469-17T4
2
2018, the OCPOS denied the application based on the nature of the offense. The
letter stated that Adams should participate in "[a]nger [m]anagement
[p]rogramming." This appeal followed.
On appeal, Adams argues that the NJDOC's decision is arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable. He contends he "has reached his rehabilitative
potential within the confines of . . . [the] prison setting," and that the only means
to achieve "his full rehabilitative potential" and gradual reintegration into
society is a transfer to a community-based, halfway-house. Adams asserts the
transfer to a RCRP should be made while he is an inmate to ensure "the
legitimate interests of all parties."
We note initially that appellate review of a final decision of an
administrative agency is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)
(quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). We will
uphold an agency's final decision in the absence of "a clear showing that [the
decision] is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in
the record." J.B. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 229 N.J. 21, 43 (2017) (quoting In re
Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)).
"In determining whether [an] agency['s] action is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable," we consider:
A-3469-17T4
3
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies . . .; (2) whether the record
contains substantial evidence to support the findings on
which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in
applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency
clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not
reasonably have been made on a showing of the
relevant factors.
[In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter,
191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).]
It is well-established that inmates do not have a constitutionally-protected
interest in an initial placement in a RCRP. See Shabazz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.,
385 N.J. Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2006) (citing Trantino v. N.J. State Parole
Bd., 296 N.J. Super. 437, 464 (App. Div. 1997), modified in part on other
grounds and aff'd, 154 N.J. 19 (1998)). However, in reviewing an agency's
decision, we must determine whether its action is consistent with the applicable
law. See In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. at 482-
83).
When an individual is convicted of an offense and committed to an
institution, the Commissioner of the NJDOC or his designee "may designate
. . . any available, suitable, and appropriate institution or facility" as a place of
confinement. N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2. The term "facility" "include[s] private
A-3469-17T4
4
nonprofit community-based residential treatment centers which provide for the
care, custody, subsistence, education, training and welfare of inmates." Ibid.
Under the NJDOC's rules, an ICC makes decisions on various matters,
including participation in a RCRP, in accordance with specified criteria
enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a). See N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.1. The criteria
include the inmate's age, family status, correctional facility adjustment, the
nature and circumstances of the inmate's "present offense," and "[a]ny other
factor pertinent to the inmate's case." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a)(3), (4), (6), (11),
and (23).
The ICC of the prison where an inmate is currently housed "may approve
an eligible inmate for participation in a [RCRP] in accordance with [the]
applicable provisions of N.J.A.C. 10A:20[-1 to -4.43] when the inmate has been
classified to full minimum custody status and meets the criteria for assignment
to the program." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.12. General eligibility criteria for RCRPs
are set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4. Among other things, an inmate seeking
transfer to a RCRP must "[b]e classified [as] full minimum by the [ICC]," "[n]ot
demonstrate an undue risk to public safety," and "[h]ave made a satisfactory
overall correctional facility adjustment and be seen as not likely to pose a threat
to the safety of the community." N.J.S.A. 10A:20-4.4(a)(1), (2), and (5).
A-3469-17T4
5
The inmate also must meet the specific eligibility criteria in N.J.A.C.
10A:20-4.5. The regulation provides that
(a) In addition to the general eligibility criteria in
N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4, candidates for [RCRPs] who
have not been convicted of a sexual offense[,] as
defined in N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.8[,] or an arson offense[,]
and who do not demonstrate an undue risk to public
safety shall be eligible [for a transfer to a RCRP,]
within the time frames established in (b) below of:
....
3. An actual parole eligibility date established by
the New Jersey State Parole Board;
(b) Candidates are eligible for participation in a
residential community program when the candidate:
1. Is otherwise eligible and who has less than
eighteen months remaining to be served and is
determined by the Commissioner or designee to be
appropriate for participation in a [RCRP].
....
[Ibid.]
Here, the record shows that in October 2017, the ICC at SWSP approved
Adams's transfer to a RCRP. However, the OCPOS thereafter denied the
application based on the nature and seriousness of his offense. In January or
February 2018, Adams submitted another application for admission to a RCRP.
A-3469-17T4
6
The ICC at SWSP again approved the application, but the OCPOS thereafter
denied the application due to the nature of the offense.
We note that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a
determination that Adams is not eligible for a halfway-house placement due to
the nature and seriousness of the offense for which he is incarcerated. As stated
previously, Adams was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Adams's
presentence report (PSR) indicates that in 2006, he was a member of the Bloods
street gang. He met with other gang members and they decided to kill L.N.
According to the PSR, L.N. also was a member of the Bloods. L.N.
apparently had reported to the police on something Adams and other gang
members had done. They agreed that Sammy Ling would shoot L.N. They
called L.N. and told her to meet them at a store. Ling shot L.N. as she was
walking home. She died as the result of a single gunshot wound to her head.
However, as noted, it appears that in this matter, the OCPOS made the
final decision denying Adams's application for admission to a RCRP. It is not
clear, however, that the OCPOS has the authority under the NJDOC's regulations
to render a final decision on Adams's application.
As previously noted, N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.5(b)(1) states that if otherwise
eligible, an inmate may participate in a RCRP if the inmate has less than
A-3469-17T4
7
eighteen months "remaining to be served" and the Commissioner or his designee
determines the inmate's transfer to a RCRP is appropriate. If the regulation
applies to an inmate who has to serve less than eighteen months before his
established parole eligibility date, the inmate's transfer would be subject to the
approval by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee. There is,
however, no indication in the record before us that the Commissioner has
delegated that authority to the OCPOS.
Moreover, N.J.A.C. 10A:20-1.4 states that the Commissioner or the
Commissioner's designee has authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2 to designate
the "place of confinement" for persons sentenced to serve sentences in State
institutions. The regulations do not, however, delegate authority to the OCPOS
to review and reverse a decision by an ICC regarding admission to an RCRP.
There also is no indication on this record that the Commissioner has delegated
authority to the OCPOS to make such decisions.
Accordingly, we reverse the NJDOC's final decision and remand the
matter to the agency for reconsideration of Adams's application for a transfer to
a RCRP in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Commissioner may,
in his discretion, exercise the authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2 and determine
if Adams should be transferred to a RCRP. If the OCPOS makes the final
A-3469-17T4
8
decision on Adams's application, it must cite the statutory or regulatory basis
for exercising that authority. If Adams is aggrieved by the NJDOC's decision,
he may file a new appeal.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration and issuance of a new final
decision in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3469-17T4
9