Case Name: In the Matter of Erick M. Campbell, Petitioner, v. Corey Bedard, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-11
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 1278
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Erick M. Campbell, Petitioner, v Corey Bedard, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
Judges: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 1278–1278

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Erick M. Campbell, Petitioner, v Corey Bedard, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.
[998 NYS2d 529]

Opinion:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for buprenorphine. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge with the explanation that he has a severe drug problem. At the conclusion of the tier III disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty as charged. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. Given petitioner's plea of guilty with an explanation, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Fields v Prack, 120 AD3d 1510 [2014]; Matter of Robinson v Prack, 119 AD3d 1309, 1309 [2014]). To the extent that petitioner contends that he was incompetent to adequately participate in the hearing, the confidential testimony establishes that the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner's mental health status and ability to participate in the hearing (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 110 AD3d 1420, 1420 [2013]; Matter of Sabino v Prack, 101 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2012]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are either unpersuasive or unpreserved for our review.
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.