BRENSTON AYERS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5066-16T2
BRENSTON AYERS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted January 29, 2019 – Decided February 7, 2019
Before Judges Geiger and Firko.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Brenston Ayers, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Kevin J. Dronson,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Brenston Ayers, an inmate at Southern State Correctional
Facility, appeals from sanctions imposed upon him by the Department of
Corrections (DOC) for violating prison rule *.004, fighting with another person,
and being in an unauthorized area in violation of rule *.402, contrary to N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.
On June 4, 2017, Senior Corrections Officer M. McGrath observed Ayers
walk from his housing unit, A Wing, to D Wing, when he engaged in a physical
altercation with another inmate, Raymond Cooper.
On June 7, 2017, a disciplinary hearing was held. Ayers pled not guilty
to the *.004 charge and guilty to the *.402 charge. He was assigned a counsel
substitute. At the hearing, Ayers testified that there "was no fight" between he
and Cooper, and that he simply "snatched [Cooper's] coffee and [Cooper]
snatched it back." Ayers' counsel sought leniency because there was no
supporting surveillance video and no "marks per medical." On the evidence
presented as to the *.004 charge, hearing officer Ralph found Ayers guilty of
fighting with Cooper. Officer Ralph noted that Ayers pled guilty to the *.402
charge and sanctioned him accordingly. Following an administrative appeal, the
Associate Administrator upheld the findings of guilt.
A-5066-16T2
2
On appeal, Ayers contends that the sanctions imposed violate his due
process rights afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution. Additionally, he contends that
the finding of guilt as to the *.004 charge was not based on substantial evidence
and should be vacated. We disagree.
In reviewing an agency decision, the scope of our inquiry is limited. In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81
N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). Upon review, we are to ascertain whether the
administrative action was "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or [ ] is not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Ramirez
v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original)
(quoting Henry, 81 N.J. at 579-80). "The burden of demonstrating that the
agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party]
challenging the administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-
44 (App. Div. 2006) (citing McGowen v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super.
544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)).
A prison disciplinary hearing is not part of a criminal's prosecution, and
thus does not guarantee a full spectrum of due process rights given to a criminal
defendant. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Defendants in a prison
A-5066-16T2
3
disciplinary hearing, however, are entitled to a limited range of due process
rights. Id. at 522-23. These rights include: the right to an impartial tribunal,
which may consist of personnel from the central office staff of the DOC; written
notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing; a limited
right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; a limited
confrontation right; a right to a written statement of the evidence used and
justification for the sanctions imposed; and a right to the assistance of substitute
counsel. Id. at 525-33; see also McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 193-96
(1995).
A review of the record fails to reveal any violation of the inmate's rights.
Here, a copy of the disciplinary report, signed and dated on June 5, 2017, was
delivered to Ayers. The disciplinary decision was signed and dated on the
following day, thus satisfying the twenty-four hour notice requirement. The
hearing was conducted before an impartial tribunal where Ayers had the
assistance of substitute counsel.
Ayers was able to make a statement on his own behalf, call witnesses on
his behalf, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. He was allowed to review the
adjudication reports and the evidence considered by the hearing officer. Thus,
Ayers' due process claim must fail.
A-5066-16T2
4
Finally, we are satisfied that there was ample credible evidence in the
record as a whole supporting the hearing officer's and DOC's decisions. The
evidence against Ayers was substantial. McGrath witnessed Ayers enter a
housing unit that he did not reside in, and confirmed the physical altercation.
Ayers pled guilty to committing prohibited act *.402. Thus, it is clear that there
was sufficient evidence to charge and find Ayers guilty of both offenses.
Affirmed.
A-5066-16T2
5