ADONIS THOMAS VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0907-19
ADONIS THOMAS,
a/k/a COREY THOMAS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
______________________
Submitted March 15, 2021 – Decided April 1, 2021
Before Judges Fasciale and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Adonis Thomas, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Suzanne Davies, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Adonis Thomas, currently an inmate at New Jersey State
Prison, appeals from a New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) final
agency decision affirming the guilty finding for committing prohibited act
*.551, making intoxicants, alcoholic beverages, or prohibited substances. We
affirm.
While conducting a routine search of Thomas's cell, a corrections officer
discovered two plastic bottles containing an orange colored liquid with pieces
of fruit inside. The bottles were found in a shower bucket on the cell floor.
Upon opening the bottles, the officer smelled rotten fruit and alcohol.
Suspecting the liquid to be homemade alcohol, or "hooch," the officer
confiscated the bottles.
Thomas was charged with committing prohibited act *.551 and the matter
was referred to a hearing officer. At the hearing, with the assistance of counsel
substitute, Thomas pleaded guilty to the charge. He told the hearing officer he
was attending programs for addiction and he made a "mistake." Thomas was
afforded an opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf and to cross-examine
adverse witnesses. He declined either opportunity. His counsel substitute
requested leniency.
A-0907-19
2
At the conclusion of the proceeding, the hearing officer found Thomas
guilty of the charge based on the officers' unrefuted testimony and Thomas's
admission of guilt. The hearing officer sanctioned Thomas to 120 days' loss of
commutation time, 91 days' administrative segregation, 365 days of urine
monitoring, and 15 days' loss of phone privileges. The hearing officer granted
leniency, noting Thomas's "plea, [statement] and disciplinary history (last
charged in 2013)." However, the hearing officer found "making/possessing
intoxicants [within] institution poses a safety [and] security threat and will not
be tolerated." The hearing officer concluded Thomas "must be held accountable
for his actions."
Thomas filed an administrative appeal from the hearing officer's
determination. He argued he did "not have the chance to have the liquid tested,
nor was any prison perso[nel] qualified to make the determin[ation] of the liquid
being 'hooch.'" The Assistant Superintendent upheld the guilty finding and the
sanctions imposed.
On appeal, Thomas argues the guilty finding must be vacated because the
investigating officer failed to collect and store the liquid, depriving him of
crucial evidence. In addition, Thomas contends the prison staff were not
A-0907-19
3
qualified and trained to test the liquid to determine if it was alcohol. We reject
these arguments.
Our scope of review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186,
190 (App. Div. 2010). Reviewing courts presume the validity of the
"administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibil ities."
Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014). "We defer to an agency decision
and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary, capricious[,] or unreasonable or not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't
of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010).
We reject Thomas's argument that the investigating officer violated
N.J.A.C. 10A:72-6.8 in collecting the evidence. The cited regulation governs
the collection of specimens taken from an inmate such as urine, blood, or saliva.1
Here, the sole evidence in support of the *.551 charge was the liquid found in
Thomas's cell.
In addition, contrary to Thomas's contention, the investigating officers
performed their duties consistent with the regulations governing corrections
1
Thomas provided a urine sample subsequent to the discovery of the liquid in
his cell. Because the urine sample tested negative for prohibited substances,
Thomas was charged solely with committing prohibited act *.551.
A-0907-19
4
facilities and there was no deprivation of his right to call the investigating
officers as fact witnesses. N.J.A.C. 10A:3-6.5 provides:
All contraband determined to pose a threat to security
or to be disruptive to the orderly running of a correction
facility shall be taken into custody of the correction
facility and under no circumstances shall be returned to
the inmate.
. . . The staff member making the seizure shall
immediately turn the contraband over to the Special
Investigation Division or Central Control of the
correctional facility, together with the completed
Seizure of Contraband Report Form 171-I and Inmate
Receipt Form 171-II.
Here, the officer who seized the contraband followed the regulation's
requirements and completed the necessary reporting forms. Thomas offers no
evidence he was precluded from calling the officer who seized the items as a
witness or otherwise challenging the evidence presented during the hearing. To
the contrary, the adjudication of disciplinary charge form, signed by Thomas
and his counsel substitute, noted Thomas declined to call witnesses on his behalf
and to confront adverse witnesses.
Thus, there is sufficient credible evidence supporting the DOC's final
determination and its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable .
Based on the record, Thomas was not deprived of his due process rights.
A-0907-19
5
Nor do we find Thomas's contention that the item found in his cell should
have been tested to determine if, in fact, it was an alcoholic beverage. Such
testing was unnecessary as Thomas pleaded guilty to making alcohol. Further,
regulatory requirements do not require testing of the liquid. See N.J.A.C.
10A:3-6.5 (recognizing suspected contraband "may" be sent to a laboratory for
analysis but is not required); see also Blanchard v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr.,
461 N.J. Super. 231, 241 (App. Div. 2019) (holding the regulation governing
testing of substances applies to specimens drawn from an inmate's body "and
not substances the inmate actually or constructively possesses.").
To the extent we have not addressed any of Thomas's remaining
arguments, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0907-19
6