JOSE G. RAMOS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1492-18T4
JOSE G. RAMOS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted March 17, 2020 – Decided March 27, 2020
Before Judges Fisher and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Jose Ramos, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Niccole L. Sandora,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Jose Ramos, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals a final agency
decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), declining to amend the
security alert section of the agency's internal classification document. We
affirm.
According to the record before the DOC, Ramos is serving a life sentence
for murder and other offenses, including endangering the welfare of a child,
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(2).1 That subsection pertains to the non-sexual abuse of a
child. Consistent with those convictions, the security alert section of the DOC's
face sheet report issued for Ramos indicates he has a child abuse history.
Ramos petitioned DOC's classification department, seeking removal of
the child abuse designation. Acknowledging it was "not an obvious error,"
Ramos instead claimed the designation implied he was a "'[c]hild [m]olester'
. . . causing unwarranted damage to [his] character and reputation." Ramos also
contended the designation will affect his eligibility for reduced custody status.
The DOC declined Ramos' request, responding that "[c]hild [a]buse is not the
same as [a] sex offense." This appeal followed.
1
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) contains two subsections. Subsection (1) proscribes
"sexual conduct" with a child that "would impair or debauch the morals of the
child"; subsection (2) prohibits "harm that would make the child an abused or
neglected child as defined in [Title Nine]."
A-1492-18T4
2
On appeal, Ramos argues the DOC should amend the face sheet to remove
the child abuse reference or include terminology that his endangering conviction
was "non-sexual." He raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE [DOC] IS IN ERROR BY HAVING ALLOWED
THE PHRASING [SIC] "CHILD ABUSE" TO BE
CITED ON [RAMOS'] FACE SHEET IN THE ALERT
SECTION CONFLICTING WITH [RAMOS']
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
POINT II
MISUSE OF THE . . . N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(2)
TERMINOLOGY "SEXUAL CONDUCT" [SIC]
COMPONENT SHOULD NOT BE USED IN THE
ALERT SECTION OF [RAMOS'] FACE SHEET.
(Not Raised Below)
We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable
legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Pursuant to our limited
standard of review, In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011), we affirm the
DOC's decision, which "is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the
record as a whole." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).
We simply note the decision to issue security alerts for inmates convicted
of child abuse is a proper exercise of the DOC's authority to make decisions
A-1492-18T4
3
related to day-to-day security. See N.J.A.C. 10A:1-1.1. Ramos has not
overcome the "strong presumption of reasonableness" accorded to the agency's
exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities. Newark v. Natural Res.
Council, Dep't Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980). We clearly defer to the
expertise of the DOC, see In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007), particularly
respecting the necessity of maintaining the security of a prison. We conclude
the DOC's designation was consistent with Ramos' convictions and, as such, the
agency's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Jenkins v. N.J.
Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010).
Affirmed.
A-1492-18T4
4