JOSEPH KELLY 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  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2716-18
    JOSEPH KELLY,
    Appellant,
    v.
    NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
    OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent.
    ___________________________
    Submitted March 11, 2020 – Decided February 11, 2021
    Before Judges Fuentes and Haas
    On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
    Corrections.
    Joseph Kelly, appellant pro se.
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of
    counsel; Travis Michael Anderson, Deputy Attorney
    General, on the brief).
    The opinion of the court was delivered by
    FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
    Appellant Joseph Kelly is an inmate at South Woods State Prison serving
    a five-year term for possession of an unspecified dangerous substance. In this
    inmate disciplinary infraction case, appellant was charged and found guilty of
    committing disciplinary infraction *.203, possession of a synthetic cannabinoid.
    He argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel substitute. A counsel
    substitute is not a lawyer.1 There are no standards to assess the effectiveness of
    a counsel substitute.   Appellant has not cited to any legal authority which
    permits an inmate facing disciplinary sanctions in a penal institution's
    disciplinary proceeding to argue he or she is entitled to challenge the fairness of
    the proceedings based on the performance of a counsel substitute.
    The record shows there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing
    officer's determination. A corrections officer saw appellant and another inmate
    sitting on the bottom bunk of their cell and in possession of a leafy substance.
    The corrections officer immediately sought the assistance of another corrections
    officer and they seized a plastic baggie containing this contraband, which
    substance tested positive for K2, a synthetic cannabinoid.
    1
    N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2 defines counsel substitute as "an individual, such as an
    inmate paralegal, teacher or social worker, who represents and defends an
    inmate at a disciplinary hearing proceeding that is conducted within a
    correctional facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. "
    A-2716-18
    2
    This court's authority to review a decision of a State administrative agency
    is limited. In re Taylor, 
    158 N.J. 644
    , 656 (1999). We will not disturb an
    agency's adjudicatory decision unless there is evidence that the decision is
    "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable," or is unsupported "by substantial
    credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 
    81 N.J. 571
    , 579-80 (1980). Here, the record reflects that the Department of
    Corrections presented substantial credible evidence to support the hearing
    officer's finding that appellant committed disciplinary infraction *.203.
    Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 
    414 N.J. Super. 186
    , 192 (App. Div. 2010); see
    also N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a).
    Affirmed.
    A-2716-18
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-2716-18

Filed Date: 2/11/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/11/2021