SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5378

- 17T4 OBADIAH TAYLOR, Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted October 3, 2019

– Decided Before Judges Mayer and Enright

. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Obadiah Taylor, a ppellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Su zanne Marie Davies, Deputy Attorney General , on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

October 30, 20192 A

- 5378

- 17T4

Petitioner Obadiah Taylor, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals from a n April 12, 2018 final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections (D OC ), affirming a guilty finding by a disciplinary hearing officer and imposing s anctions . The hearing officer found petitioner guilty of prohibited acts *.803/*.306, attempting to disrupt or interfere with the security or orderly running of a correctional facility. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 4.1 (a) . We affirm.
In 2 017 , the Special Investigation s Division (SID) co nducted an investigat ion of suspected "street

- to

- street" transactions among inmates at various State prison facilities

. In a "street

- to

- street" transaction, inmates use individuals outside the prison to arrange for the transfer of money that is then used to fund illegal activities by the inmates , including the purchas e of illegal drugs, cellular telephones, and other contraband. Such conduct violates the
DOC 's rules and regulations and interferes with the orderly r unning of the corrections facilit ies

. As part of the investigation, the SID recorded telephone calls in July 2017 made by petitioner to friends and family members , requesting money to finance suspected drug transactions. During those recorded communicati ons, petitioner spoke cryptically to conceal the nature of the transactions.3 A

- 5378

- 17T4

In Februar y 2018, the SID issued a report, detailing illegal drug transactions within various prison facilities. Based on th at report, on February 8, 2018, petitioner was charg ed w ith committing prohibit ed acts *.803/*.306. A disciplinary hearing was conducted. Petitioner and his counsel substitute were permitted to listen to the SID's recorded telephone calls. Petitioner did not testify at the hearing and did not cross - examine the Department's witnesses. The hearing officer concluded petitioner was guilty of prohibited acts *.803/*.306 because the evidence offered by the SID showed petitioner employed associates outside the correction s facility to conduct illeg al financial transactions. The hearing officer also found petitioner admitted to conduct designed to circumvent the institutional telephone monitoring system by speaking in a cryptic language to avoid detection of his illegal transaction s . The hearin g officer recommended p etitioner be sanction ed to 180 days' administrative segregation, 180 days' loss of commutation time, 30 days' loss of recreation privileges, and 365 days' loss of tele phone privileges. The D OC affirmed the hearing officer's recommen dation but modified the sanction , reducing the loss of telephone privileges to sixty days.4 A

- 5378

- 17T4

On appeal, petitioner contends the D OC 's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial credible evidence. In addition, he argues the discipl inary hearing violated his procedural due process rights. Our review of an administrative agency decision is limited. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp. , 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). We will not disturb an administrative agency determina tion absent a showing the decision was " 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) (citing Bailey v. Bd. of Review , 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 ( App. Div. 2001))

. "Substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr. , 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co

. , 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). We first examine petitioner's claim that the DOC violated his due process rights. See McDonald v. Pinchak , 139 N.J. 188, 194

- 96 (1995) (establishing procedural safeguards to ensure prison disciplinary proceedin gs meet due process requirements for inmates facing disciplinary charges). An incarcerated inmate facing a disciplinary proceeding is not entitled to the full panoply of rights accorded to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant v. Clifford , 675 A

- 5378

- 17T4

N.J. 496, 522 (1975). An inmate is entitled to written notice of the charges prior to the hearing; an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; a limited right to confront and cross

- examine adverse witnesses; a ri ght to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions imposed; and , if the charges are complex, the assistance of counsel substitute. Id. at 525

- 33 ; see also N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 9.1
to

- 9.28. Having reviewed the record, an d applying these principles, we are satisfied petitioner was afforded these procedural safeguard s . He was given written notice of the charges within forty

- eight hours after the SID issued its report and at least twenty

- fou r hours prio r to the disciplinary hearing. P etitioner , who had assigned counsel substitute, had the right to call witness es a nd cross

e xamine the DOC's witnesses but declined to do so. He was allowed to listen to the SID's recorded telephone calls prior to the hearing. While petitioner was unable to review the confidential SID report, he reviewed a summary of the report in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 9.15(b)

. We next consider petitioner's claim that the DOC's decision was arbitrary, capriciou s, and not based on substantial credible evidence. Based on our review of the record, pe titioner's guilty determination was grounded in substantial and6 A

- 5378

- 17T4

credible evidence , including the SID's report and petitioner's recorded telephone calls

. Absent eviden ce presented by petitioner to the contrary, the DOC's
determination was not arbitrary , capricious , or unreasonable

. We also agree that t he infractions committed by petitioner undermined the security and orderly running of the corrections facilit y. T here fore t he imposed
sanctions , as modified, were appropriate. Affirmed.