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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5343-17T1

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.
3

A-5343-17T1

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." 
4

A-5343-17T1

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 
5

A-5343-17T1

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.