JESSE DAISEY VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5478-18T2
JESSE DAISEY,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________
Submitted November 9, 2020 - Decided December 1, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Jesse Daisey, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Nicholas Falcone, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this prison disciplinary matter, Jesse Daisey, a state inmate, appeals a
determination by the Department of Corrections that he committed prohibited
acts *.803 (attempting to commit, aiding another person to commit, or making
plans to commit any Category A or B offense), and *.207 (possession of
currency over $50.00 without authorization). We affirm.
The violations stemmed from a corrections staff member's inspection on
July 1, 2019 of a package sent to appellant by his aunt. The package contained
a pair of sneakers. The staff member discovered a total of $140 in cash hidden
under the soles of the sneakers, a sum above the $50 currency limit allowed by
the institution's policies.
Prison staff suspected appellant had conspired with his aunt to have her
send him the money illicitly. Another staff member, Keith Hooper, listened to
recordings of phone calls between the aunt and appellant that occurred on June
29, two days before the cash was discovered. According to his written report,
Hooper heard the aunt say on the recording that she had glued the money under
the sneaker soles, which would be “very hard to detect.” Appellant thanked her
on the phone call for doing so.
When confronted with this, appellant initially denied trying to have cash
smuggled into the prison. He later changed his story and claimed he had only
A-5478-18T2
2
asked his aunt to send him money through legitimate means such as a money
order.
Appellant was charged with the above noted infractions, and a disciplinary
hearing was conducted. Appellant's counsel substitute entered a guilty plea at
the hearing, but appellant subsequently claimed the plea was without his
approval.
The audio of the aunt’s calls and the video of appellant on the phone with
her unfortunately were not playable at the disciplinary hearing. The hearing
officer did consider Hooper’s written report, along with other evidence, and
found those inculpatory proofs more persuasive than appellant’s attempted
explanation.
Upon finding appellant guilty of the charged infractions, the hearing
officer imposed upon him sanctions of 121 days of administrative segregatio n,
thirty days' loss of recreation privileges, and 121 days of lost commutation time.
Appellant then filed an administrative appeal internally within the Department.
That appeal was denied on July 15, 2019.
Appellant contends in his letter brief that he was denied procedural due
process and that the disciplinary decision is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. We disagree.
A-5478-18T2
3
It is well established that our courts generally will not disturb the
Department's administrative decision to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an
inmate, unless the inmate demonstrates that the decision is arbitrary, capricious ,
or unreasonable, or that the record lacks substantial, credible evidence to support
that decision. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980);
Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010).
The evidence considered by the hearing officer, even without a playing of
the recorded conversation, is more than ample proof to support the charged
infractions. The prohibited amount of currency was indisputably hidden in
appellant's sneakers found in a package mailed by his relative to him. There is
reasonable circumstantial evidence, including the investigation reports, that
appellant arranged with his aunt to have her send him the hidden cash by this
furtive means. Appellant's constructive possession of the contraband was
reasonably established.
Moreover, prisoners in disciplinary matters are afforded only limited due
process protections, such as fair notice of charges, an opportunity to confront
witnesses, and a chance to present opposing evidence. McDonald v. Pinchak,
139 N.J. 188, 193-99 (1995); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 528-32 (1975).
These minimal requirements were met here. Appellant declined the opportunity
A-5478-18T2
4
to call witnesses, testify in his own behalf, or confront the Department's
witnesses. He had the aid of a counsel substitute. Due process was satisfied.
Affirmed.
A-5478-18T2
5