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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 1, 2020
2

A-5478-18T2

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 
3

A-5478-18T2

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 segregation, 

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.
4

A-5478-18T2

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 
5

A-5478-18T2

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.