SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1045-18T2

RANDY JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

___________________________

Submitted January 29, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Enright. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Randy Johnson, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Nicholas A. Falcone, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 6, 2020
2

A-1045-18T2

Appellant Randy Johnson appeals from the October 10, 2018 final agency 

decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) that he committed 

prohibited act *.203, possession or introduction of any prohibited substances 

such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate 

by the medical or dental staff. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.

DOC developed the following facts at appellant's disciplinary hearing. 

On May 22, 2017, while incarcerated at Northern State Prison, corrections 

officers found him in a shower in his underwear. Appellant was slurring his 

speech, disoriented, and unable to stand on his own. Medical staff provided 

emergency medical treatment to appellant and administered a Narcan shot. 

Corrections officers searched the shower where appellant was found and 

discovered a pair of pants. In the right pocket of the pants, they discovered four 

folded pieces of thick paper, which contained suspected heroin. Corrections 

officers also found glasses and a radio in the shower area that belonged to 

appellant. No other inmate was in the shower area at the time. The suspected 

contraband was logged and photographed. Subsequent testing confirmed the 

suspected contraband was fentanyl. 

Appellant's hearing on his disciplinary charge was postponed three times

in order to secure lab results of the substance recovered during the incident, to 
3

A-1045-18T2

clarify the identification of appellant's pants and to allow him to confront and 

question the corrections officer involved in the incident. 

The hearing proceeded in June 2018. Appellant pled not guilty and was 

afforded the assistance of counsel substitute. During the hearing, the corrections 

officer who discovered appellant in the shower on the date of the incident 

testified that appellant was found in his underwear, his pants were nearby, 

nobody else was in the shower area at that time, and inmates are not permitted 

to walk to the shower from their cells wearing only their underwear. 

The hearing officer found appellant guilty of prohibited act *.203 and 

imposed the following penalties: permanent loss of contact visits; 365 days' 

urine monitoring; 125 days' administrative segregation; 125 days' loss of 

commutation time; 20 days' loss of recreation privileges; and 10 days' loss of 

telephone privileges. Appellant administratively appealed this decision and the 

DOC upheld the hearing officer's decision, triggering the instant appeal. 

Appellant argues there was no proof that the items found in the shower on 

the day of the incident belonged to him, that the investigation process was 

flawed, that he was not permitted to view the physical evidence pertinent to the 

investigation and that his counsel substitute was ineffective. 
4

A-1045-18T2

Having considered appellant's arguments in light of the record and 

controlling law, we find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following 

brief remarks.

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 responsibilities." 

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). But, an agency's 

"interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established 

facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. 

Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Here, the DOC's decision is 

supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole, Rule 2:11-

3(e)(1)(D), and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Henry v. Rahway

State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980). 
5

A-1045-18T2

Further, appellant was afforded the process due an inmate in disciplinary 

proceedings. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995); Avant v. 

Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522-33 (1975). His claim that he was denied due process 

because his counsel substitute failed to provide adequate assistance is 

particularly unavailing. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12(a), "[w]hen an inmate 

has been charged with an asterisk offense, the inmate shall be afforded the right 

to request representation by a counsel substitute." Our Supreme Court has held 

that requiring inmates to be represented by attorneys "would be wholly 

incompatible with New Jersey institutional needs and capacities and . . . 

unessential to protection of the inmate's rights." Avant, 67 N.J. at 537. Rather, 

the prison need only "choose a sufficiently competent staff member or inmate to 

provide assistance" or allow the inmate to choose "a consenting staff member or

inmate." Id. at 529. Inmate paralegals are not attorneys and receive limited 

training. To hold counsel substitutes to the standards of legally educated,

licensed, and practicing attorneys would be unrealistic. Moreover, appellant has 

not demonstrated his counsel substitute was incompetent or failed to fulfill his 

limited role. 

Affirmed.