SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5966-17T2

SHAMEIK BYRD,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted November 6, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Hoffman and Firko.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Shameik Byrd, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Francis A. Raso, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 22, 2019
2

A-5966-17T2

Appellant Shameik Byrd, a New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) inmate, 

appeals from a March 14, 2018 final agency decision of the Department of 

Corrections (DOC), finding him guilty and imposing sanctions for committing 

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, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(xv).1 

Because the finding of guilt was based on substantial credible evidence in the 

record and the disciplinary hearing comported with all due process 

requirements, we affirm.

I.

We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record. 

On August 26, 2017, during a routine search at Northern State Prison (NSP), a 

Senior Corrections Officer (SCO) found what appeared to be a controlled 

dangerous substance (CDS) wrapped inside a blue plastic glove among Byrd's 

belongings underneath his top bunk. SCOs immediately transported Byrd to 

pre-hearing disciplinary housing and sent the substance to the State Police

laboratory for testing.

1

 N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 identifies the prohibited acts by numerical designation. 

Offenses with designations "preceded by an asterisk (*) are considered the most 

serious and result in the most severe sanctions . . . ." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).
3

A-5966-17T2

Byrd was formally served with the aforementioned disciplinary charge on 

August 28, 2017. After the charge was investigated, it was determined the 

charge had merit, and the matter was referred for a hearing before a disciplinary 

hearing officer (DHO). Byrd pled not guilty. The initial hearing, scheduled for 

August 29, 2017, was postponed pending test results from the State Police 

laboratory. In the interim, Byrd was transferred to Southern State Correctional 

Facility, where he is serving the remainder of his sentence.

The disciplinary hearing took place on March 12, 2018. At the hearing, 

Byrd was provided counsel-substitute as requested but declined to make a 

statement, call witnesses on his behalf, or confront any adverse witnesses. The 

adjudication form states Byrd "[r]el[ied] on statement to SID,"2 but no such 

statement is provided in the record. The State Police laboratory notified the new 

facility the substance tested positive for heroin.

After reviewing the reports and several photographs of the items seized 

from Byrd's cell, the DHO determined Byrd was guilty of prohibited act *.203,

noting an NSP corrections officer found the heroin tucked beneath Byrd's bunk. 

After considering the evidence, the DHO imposed the following sanction: fifteen 

2

 Special Investigations Division.
4

A-5966-17T2

days loss of recreational privileges; 100 days of administrative segregation; 100 

days loss of commutation time; and 365 days of urine monitoring.

Through his counsel-substitute, Byrd filed an administrative appeal 

seeking rescission of the DHO's findings pending a full investigation of the 

common area rule. In support, Byrd argued he never possessed the contraband 

at issue, which was not in a secured locker, and therefore, it must have belonged 

to his cellmate at NSP. He also sought leniency.

On March 14, 2018, the assistant superintendent of the facility upheld the 

decision and imposition of sanctions. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Byrd argues that:

[THE] AGENCY DECISION TO UPHOLD A 

GUILTY FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN VIOLATION OF 

NEW JERSEY RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 401.

(Not Raised Below).

Byrd further argues that the record lacked substantial credible evidence 

for the hearing officer to impose sanctions and therefore, his due process rights 

were violated.

II.

Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited. 

Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010); In 
5

A-5966-17T2

re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). We will not upset the determination of an 

administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable; that it lacked fair support in the evidence; or that it violated 

legislative policies. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) 

(citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)).

We have also noted that the Legislature has provided the DOC with broad 

discretion in all matters regarding the administration of a prison facility, 

including disciplinary infractions by prisoners. Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 

N.J. Super. 576, 583 (App. Div. 1999). Therefore, we may not vacate an 

agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record 

may support more than one result. De Vitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. 

Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div. 1985).

However, "although the determination of an administrative agency is 

entitled to deference, our appellate obligation requires more than a perfunctory 

review." Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 191 (quoting Blackwell v. Dep't of Corr., 

348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002)). We are not "relegated to a mere 

rubber-stamp of agency action[,]" but rather we must "engage in careful and 

principled consideration of the agency record and findings." Williams v. Dep't 
6

A-5966-17T2

of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 204 (App. Div. 2000) (internal quotations and 

citation omitted).

Byrd contends that the SCO's decision not to question or drug test Byrd's 

cellmate sheds reasonable doubt concerning ownership of the CDS given his 

cellmate's access to his belongings. Moreover, Byrd claims the DOC did not 

prove with certainty that the CDS was not planted in his cell with his personal 

items.

Byrd's assertions are belied by the record. The finding of guilt was based 

on substantial credible evidence and the disciplinary hearing comported with all 

due process requirements.

A prison disciplinary proceeding "is not part of a criminal prosecution and 

thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not 

apply." Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975) (quoting Morrissey v. 

Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972)). In Avant, the New Jersey Supreme Court 

prescribed limited due process protections due to prisoners prior to their 

subjection to discipline. Id. at 519, n.21.

These protections include written notice of the charges and timely 

adjudication; a hearing before an impartial tribunal; representation, if requested, 
7

A-5966-17T2

by counsel-substitute; a limited ability to call witnesses and confront adverse 

witnesses; and a limited ability to present documentary evidence. Id. at 525-30.

Here, the record reflects that Byrd was afforded all due process 

protections and his ability to defend himself was not impaired by the SCO not 

testing or questioning Byrd's cellmate. We have held "[w]here there is 

substantial evidence in the record to support more than one regulatory 

conclusion, 'it is the agency's choice which governs.'" In re Vineland Chem. 

Co., 243 N.J. Super. 285, 307 (App. Div. 1990) (De Vitis, 202 N.J. Super. at 

491).

In the present case, the DHO reviewed an Inmate Contraband Seizure 

Report; several Special Custody Reports prepared in August 2017; a Use of 

Force Report; a March 2018 Preliminary Incident Report; the State Police 

Laboratory Drug Analysis; and photographs of the items removed from Byrd's 

cell. The DHO confirmed that the item was identified as a CDS.

Based upon our review of the record, we are convinced the charge against 

Byrd was supported by substantial credible evidence, and the DOC's 

determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We further 

conclude that Byrd received all due process protections afforded him.

Affirmed.