PATRICK PANTUSCO VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5343-17T1
PATRICK PANTUSCO,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted May 6, 2019 – Decided June 18, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Patrick Pantusco, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Patrick Pantusco is an inmate currently incarcerated at South
Woods State Prison. He is serving an aggregate fifty-year sentence, with thirty
years of parole ineligibility for murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated
assault, eluding police, armed burglary, and theft. His convictions are the result
of a crime spree that he committed in June 1996. Appellant seeks review of a
decision made by the Department of Corrections (DOC) Institutional
Classification Committee (ICC) denying his application to be reclassified from
"gang minimum custody status," as defined in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.3(d), to "full
minimum custody status," as defined in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.3(c).
Appellant contends that:
POINT I: THE DECISIONS TO CHARACTERIZE
PATRICK PANTUSCO'S INSTITUTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT AS DISPLAYING AN EXTREME
LEVEL OF VIOLENCE AND IMPULSIVE
BEHAVIOR WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
AND THEREFORE MUST BE REVERSED.
POINT II: THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FAILURE TO
ADDRESS THE MERITS OF MR. PANTUSCO'S
APPEAL RENDERS THE DECISION ARBITRARY
AND CAPRICIOUS.
POINT III: THE INSTITUTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE'S FAILURE TO
MAINTAIN ACCURATE RECORDS DENIED
PATRICK PANTUSCO DUE PROCESS THEREBY
DENYING HIM HIS RIGHT TO COMPLETE HIS
COLLEGE DEGREE.
A-5343-17T1
2
We have considered appellant's contentions in light of the record and
applicable legal principles, and conclude that they are without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). In reaching that
conclusion, we note that appellant emphasizes in the preliminary statement in
his brief that he "did not contest the denial of full minimum custody status, but
requested a reevaluation of the record because in over 22 years of incarceration,
he has NEVER exhibited behavior that could be deemed to be 'an extreme level
of violence, or impulsive behavior.'" (Underlining and capitalization in
original). It thus appears that appellant in this appeal is not actually challenging
the agency's decision to deny his reclassification request, but rather is
challenging the ICC's articulation of the reasons for the denial, claiming that
they reflect a mischaracterization of his conduct while in the custody of the
DOC.1
Putting aside that appeals are taken from final judgments, or in this
instance, an agency decision, not the reasons therefor, see R. 2:2-3(a)(2),
appellant has misinterpreted and mischaracterized the ICC's statement of
1
Appellant contends that the ICC's determination "was neither based on fact,
nor supported by [his] institutional record." Appellant states that he was
"dismayed by the committee's characterization of his institutional adjustment,"
and "allowing the mischaracterization to go uncorrected [will] hinder his future
eligibility for programs and halfway house participation."
A-5343-17T1
3
reasons. Appellant contends that the ICC's finding regarding his extreme level
of violence and impulsive behavior is based on his conduct as an inmate. The
record clearly shows, however, that the ICC's finding was not based on
appellant's institutional adjustment, that is, on his behavior while in prison, but
rather was based solely on his criminal record and the field accounts of the
offenses for which he was convicted.
Even if defendant was challenging the denial of his reclassification
request, the standard of review we apply is highly deferential to the DOC. The
Commissioner of the DOC has considerable discretion in determining the
custody status of inmates. Smith v. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 29-30
(App. Div. 2001). Accordingly, our review of agency action is limited. "An
appellate court ordinarily will reverse the decision of an administrative agency
only when the agency's decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or is
not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'"
Ramirez v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Henry
v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
We have consistently upheld the DOC's institutional prerogative to
reclassify an inmate's custodial status based on a variety of reasons. See
Shabazz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 385 N.J. Super. 117, 119 (App. Div. 2006). In
A-5343-17T1
4
this instance, it is clear that the ICC was acting within its prerogative when it
relied upon the spate of serious crimes defendant had committed as part of his
violent crime spree. The applicable provision of the administrative code
explicitly provides that in deciding an inmate's application for a reduced custody
status, the ICC must take into consideration all relevant factors, including but
not limited to the field account of the present offense and the inmate's prior
criminal record. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a)(1)–(2).
We note, finally, that appellant in Point III of his brief argues that the
DOC has failed to maintain accurate records. However, he has not specified the
errors he alludes to and does not appear to have provided the DOC an
opportunity to research and correct those specified errors. He therefore has not
exhausted his administrative remedies, which is a precondition to seeking
appellate relief. See Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp. & Dispensary, 79 N.J. 549,
558 (1979).
Affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant's right to pursue
administrative remedies to correct any specifically identified mistakes in his
institutional record.
A-5343-17T1
5