SEAN MALCOLM VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3419-18
    SEAN MALCOLM,
    Appellant,
    v.
    NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
    OF CORRECTIONS,
    Defendant.
    ___________________________
    Submitted May 13, 2020 – Decided July 2, 2021
    Before Judges Fuentes and Enright.
    On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
    Corrections.
    Sean Malcolm, appellant pro se.
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Jane C. Shuster, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Niccole L. Sandora, Deputy
    Attorney General, on the brief).
    The opinion of the court was delivered by
    FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
    Appellant Sean Malcolm is currently incarcerated at New Jersey State
    Prison serving a thirty-year term of imprisonment for murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
    3a(1), with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility under the No
    Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, as well as related lesser included
    offenses. He appeals from the decision of a Hearing Officer who found he
    committed a disciplinary infraction, to wit prohibited act *.203, possession of
    any prohibited substance. Appellant was originally charged with prohibited act
    *.503, making an intoxicant.      However, based on insufficient evidence to
    support the accusation that appellant actually made the intoxicant, the Hearing
    Officer amended the charge to *.203.        Corrections Officer Sergeant Bezek
    served appellant with this amended charge on February 6, 2019.
    The Corrections Officer who searched appellant's cell on February 5,
    2019, found a bottle containing a liquid with a strong odor of alcohol. Sergeant
    Bezek averred that he sniffed the bottle found in appellant's possession and its
    content smelled like an alcoholic beverage "based on his training and
    experience." Appellant claimed the content of the bottle was only juice. He
    pleaded not guilty and at his request was granted counsel substitute. He admitted
    possession of the bottle, but denied it contained any intoxicants.
    A-3419-18
    2
    Counsel substitute argued that the Department of Corrections (DOC) did
    not present proof that there was bread or sugar found in the bottle and Sergeant
    Bezek did not have the kind of "specialized training" to permit him to
    differentiate, based on smell alone, between spoiled fruit juice and fruit juice
    modified to create an alcoholic beverage. The Hearing Officer reviewed the
    evidence and considered the arguments presented and found the content of the
    staff reports were sufficient to find appellant guilty of disciplinary infraction
    *.203.
    The Hearing Officer imposed a sanction of 120 days of administrative
    segregation, 120 days loss of commutation time, permanent loss of contact
    visits, 365 days of urine monitoring, referral for a mental health evaluation, and
    confiscation of the prohibited item. Appellant administratively appealed the
    Hearing Officer's decision and on March 5, 2019, an associate administrator
    upheld the guilty finding, as well as the sanctions imposed.         This appeal
    followed.
    Based on the standard of proof required, we reverse. "A finding of guilt
    at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial evidence that the inmate
    has committed a prohibited act."        N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a).      "Substantial
    evidence" means "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
    A-3419-18
    3
    to support a conclusion." Figueroa v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., 
    414 N.J. Super. 186
    , 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Public Serv. Electric & Gas Co., 
    35 N.J. 358
    , 376 (1961)). An appellate court may reverse a disciplinary conviction
    that is "not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole ."
    Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 
    81 N.J. 571
    , 580 (1980).
    Although a lay person may opine about whether a person is under the
    influence of alcohol, Sergeant Bezek testified the liquid was an alcoholic
    beverage based on his specialized training. In Blanchard v. New Jersey Dep't
    of Corr., we held that the DOC "acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably
    in denying a confirmatory laboratory test of a powder, seized from the inmate,
    which a field test indicated contained cocaine." 
    461 N.J. Super. 231
    , 235 (App.
    Div. 2019). The situation here is analogous. The content of the bottle may have
    had an odor associated with an alcoholic beverage, but this alone does not
    constitute substantial evidence.
    This court has made clear that,
    "although the determination of an administrative
    agency is entitled to deference, our appellate obligation
    requires more than a perfunctory review." Blackwell v.
    Dep't of Corr., 
    348 N.J. Super. 117
    , 123 (App. Div.
    2002). Accordingly, our function is not to merely
    rubberstamp an agency's decision, Williams v. Dep't of
    Corr., 
    330 N.J. Super. 197
    , 204 (App. Div. 2000);
    rather, our function is "to engage in 'a careful and
    A-3419-18
    4
    principled consideration of the agency record and
    findings.'" 
    Ibid.
     (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau
    of Sec., 
    64 N.J. 85
    , 93 (1973)).
    [Figueroa, 
    414 N.J. Super. at 191
    ].
    Here, the Hearing Officer held that appellant "did not provide any
    evidence to discredit staff reports. As such, [the Hearing Officer] will rely on
    written reports and clarification received to support the charge as amended."
    The Hearing Officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to appellant.
    Without some basis to assess the reliability of the specialized training received
    by Sergeant Bezek, the Hearing Officer's findings are not supported by
    substantial evidence.
    Reversed.
    A-3419-18
    5