Court Opinion

ID: 9965769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 14:10:18.088743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:38.671755
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-2178-22

HASSAN SLY,

         Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
__________________________

                   Submitted February 26, 2024 – Decided May 3, 2024

                   Before Judges Gilson and Berdote Byrne.

                   On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
                   Corrections.

                   Hassan Sly, appellant pro se.

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney
                   General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson,
                   Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Appellant Hassan Sly, an inmate at the East Jersey State Prison, appeals

from a final administrative agency decision of the New Jersey Department of

Corrections (DOC) upholding a disciplinary hearing officer's finding that he

committed four prohibited acts and the imposition of sanctions. Appellant

argues there was no substantial, credible evidence in the record to support the

findings. After reviewing the record in light of the governing legal principles,

we affirm.

                                     I.

      We discern the following from the record.         On August 14, 2022,

appellant was delivering food trays to other inmates during his morning shift

as a kitchen worker. After entering a housing unit, Officers Sorrell and Castro

heard another inmate call out to appellant, asking him to go up the stairs.

Castro called out to appellant, ordering him to return to the officers' desk

within the unit. Appellant did not immediately return and continued up the

stairs. Upon his return, the officers questioned him regarding what he was

doing upstairs and whether he heard the directive to return, which he denied

hearing.

      The officers then ordered appellant to turn around and place his hands on

his head so they could frisk him and check for contraband. Appellant initially

                                                                        A-2178-22
                                          2
complied, but during the pat down he turned toward Sorrell, who was frisking

him. This prompted Sorrell to "take [appellant] down" to the ground and call

for emergency assistance from other officers.        Other officers arrived and

assisted Sorrell in handcuffing and escorting appellant out of the unit. The

incident was video-recorded and submitted into evidence.

      In his written statement made after the incident, Sorrell reported "in the

beginning [appellant] was compliant with my orders. I retrieved a yellow

piece of paper out of his pocket, attempting to search his other side/pocket . . .

is when [appellant] turned towards me in the middle of the pat down, and I

immediately took him down . . . ." Appellant was charged, in violation of

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), with attempted assault, *.803/.002, refusal to submit to

a search, *.708, failure to comply with a written rule or regulation of the

correctional facility, *.709, and engaging in conduct which disrupts or

interferes, *.306.

      A corrections sergeant investigated the incident and referred the charges

to a disciplinary hearing officer. Appellant requested and was afforded the

assistance of a counsel substitute during the hearing, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12(a).

He pleaded not guilty to the charges, contending he did not resist the officers,

did not refuse the search, and only turned his head toward the officer to inform

                                                                          A-2178-22
                                       3
him he was experiencing pain caused by the officer's elbow on his back during

the pat down. He also provided the hearing officer with a written statement

denying he resisted.

         During the hearing, appellant was offered the opportunity to call

witnesses, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and review video footage but

declined. The evidence presented at the hearing consisted of a video,1 thirty-

one reports and documents, including numerous officers' statements, and

appellant's written statement. Both Sorrell and Castro provided corroborative

written reports stating appellant turned toward Sorrell during the pat down and

was immediately put on the ground before Sorrell called for assistance on the

radio.

         The hearing officer reviewed the submitted documentation and a video

of the incident and summarized the evidence as follows:

              [Appellant] states he turned his head during the
              search. The C/O stated he was non-compliant &
              attempted to resist & assault him during the search.
              The inmate stated he was in pain & was turning
              around to tell the C/O. He did not call out to the
              officer. The C/O felt the inmate was attempting to
              assault him & tried to take the inmate down. The
              inmate resisted the take down & a code was called.
              The [appellant] said he did not resist but the video

1
    The video was not provided on appeal.

                                                                       A-2178-22
                                      4
            clearly shows [him] resisting & several officers
            having to get involved.

      The hearing officer found appellant guilty of the charges. As a result of

the violations, appellant received sanctions, including one year in the

restorative housing unit, one year loss of commutation time, thirty days loss of

recreational privileges, and thirty days loss of email, J-Pay, telephone, tablet,

radio, television, and canteen privileges.

      Appellant administratively appealed the decision.           The assistant

superintendent upheld the hearing officer's decision and concluded the

sanctions were proportionate to the offenses. This appeal followed.

                                      II.

      The scope of our review is limited. Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457

N.J. Super. 87, 93 (App. Div. 2018). As a general matter, "[w]e will disturb an

agency's adjudicatory decision only upon a finding that the decision is

'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable,' or is unsupported 'by substantial

credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.,

461 N.J. Super. 231, 237-38 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State

Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)); see also N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a).

"Substantial evidence has been defined alternatively as 'such evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,' and

                                                                         A-2178-22
                                       5
'evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action.'" Id. at 238

(quoting Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div.

2010)).

      When reviewing a prison disciplinary matter, we also consider whether

the DOC followed the regulations adopted to afford an inmate procedural due

process. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-95 (1995); Jacobs v.

Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 220-22 (1995).       Admittedly, "[p]rison disciplinary

proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of

rights due [to] a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Jenkins v.

Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 248-49 (1987) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 556 (1974)). However, the inmate's more limited procedural rights,

initially set forth in Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 525-46 (1975), are codified

in a comprehensive set of DOC regulations. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.1 to -9.28.

Those rights include an inmate's entitlement to a limited right to confront and

cross-examine adverse witnesses, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14, the opportunity to call

witnesses and evidence, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.13, and, in certain circumstances,

the assistance of counsel substitute, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12. These regulations

"strike the proper balance between the security concerns of the prison, the need

for swift and fair discipline, and the due-process rights of the inmates."

                                                                          A-2178-22
                                       6
Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 203 (2000) (citing McDonald,

139 N.J. at 202).

      Applying these principles, we are satisfied there was substantial credible

evidence in the record to support the findings and sanctions.       Sorrell and

Castro's reports indicate appellant was directed to return to the officers' desk

but failed to comply. Upon his return, he was told to submit to a pat down.

They noted although appellant initially complied, he turned towards Sorrell

before the pat down was completed. All officers who assisted in subduing

appellant reported he was resisting while on the ground when they attempted

to handcuff him.     Lastly, video evidence supports the finding appellant

resisted.

      As the fact finder, the hearing officer was permitted to consider the

reports as evidence and rely on the examination of physical evidence.

N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.1. The hearing officer relied on the numerous corroborative

reports and on video evidence of the interaction for corroboration. The only

contrary evidence offered was the testimony of appellant. We discern no basis

to disturb these findings and conclude the sanctions imposed are consistent

with DOC regulations.

      Affirmed.

                                                                        A-2178-22
                                      7