Court Opinion

ID: 9902442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:06:50.842366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:51.401782
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2235-21

JAHEEM WARREN,
a/k/a JAHEEM LEARY,
ISIAH THOMAS, and
JAHIEM WARREN,

          Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
___________________________

                   Submitted November 13, 2023 – Decided November 27, 2023

                   Before Judges Sabatino and Vinci.

                   On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
                   Corrections.

                   Jaheem Warren, appellant pro se.

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney
                   General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy
                   Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM

      Appellant Jaheem Warren, an inmate in New Jersey State Prison, appeals

from a March 10, 2022 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections

finding him guilty of threatening another with bodily harm or with any offense

against his or her person or his or her property under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4-

1(a)(2)(ii) (prohibited act *.005). As a result of the finding, appellant lost

certain recreational privileges for fifteen days, was assigned to a restorative

housing unit for sixty days, and was referred to the classification committee for

further action. Based on our review of the record and the applicable principles

of law, we affirm.

      According to the Department's findings, on March 3, 2022, appellant

stopped Officer B. Peterson and stated, "I can't stay here anymore. If I stay here

any longer, I'm going to hurt somebody." Appellant was charged with making

a threat. On March 4, 2022, a copy of the disciplinary report and charge was

delivered to appellant. An officer conducted an investigation and referred t he

charge to a hearing officer for further action. Appellant requested the assistance

of counsel substitute, which was granted. Appellant indicated he intended to

obtain a statement from an individual identified as "Grimes" in housing unit

"62L-cell 23."

                                                                            A-2235-21
                                        2
      On March 7, 2022, a hearing was conducted before a disciplinary hearing

officer ("DHO").    Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.        Appellant

reviewed the evidence, declined his right to call any witnesses, and declined his

right to confront or cross-examine any witnesses. Appellant made a statement

at the hearing indicating he was scheduled to leave on March 17, 2022, and was

being extorted. Appellant's counsel substitute signed the hearing report form

indicating it reflected accurately what took place at the hearing.

      After reviewing the evidence, including Officer Peterson's report and

appellant's statement, the DHO found appellant guilty. In imposing sanctions,

the DHO considered appellant's prior finding of guilt on the same charge and

noted the need to take threats seriously within prison culture to maintain safety

and order. The DHO noted appellant did not deny making the statement.

      On March 7, 2022, appellant administratively appealed the DHO's

decision. He argued his statement did not meet the requirements of a threat

because case law and Department regulations require that a specific person be

threatened. Appellant also stated he was "supposed to leave on the 13th." The

appeal form was signed by appellant and his counsel substitute. On March 10,

2022, the Department upheld the decision of the DHO. This appeal followed.

                                                                           A-2235-21
                                        3
      Appellant raises the following arguments:

            POINT I

            INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF THE ALLEGED
            INFRACTION DID NOT COMPLETE A FULL
            INVESTIGATION[.]

            POINT II

            THE COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO
            THE    DEPARTMENT    FOR    FURTHER
            CONSIDERATION[.]

      Our review of agency determinations is limited. See In re Stallworth, 208

N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); Figueroa

v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). We will not

reverse an administrative agency's decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable, or not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as

a whole." Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (citation omitted); accord Jenkins v. N.J.

Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010).

      In determining whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable, we consider whether: (1) The agency followed the law; (2)

substantial evidence supports the findings; and (3) the agency "clearly erred" in

applying the "legislative policies to the facts." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-

83 (2007) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)). Applying that

                                                                             A-2235-21
                                        4
well-established standard, we accord particular deference to the expertise and

"broad discretionary powers" of the Department in managing the State prisons

pursuant to its statutory responsibilities. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J.

239, 252 (1987).

      Appellant contends the DHO did not address or explain why the witness

statement he requested was unavailable and did not postpone the disciplinary

hearing, thereby denying him access to the testimony of an eyewitness.

Appellant also contends his counsel substitute submitted the administrative

appeal form without his consent and forged his signature. We are not persuaded.

      Although appellant initially indicated he intended to call "Grimes" as a

witness, he waived his right to call witnesses at the hearing and did not request

an adjournment.     In addition, appellant does not describe what testimony

"Grimes", or any other witness could have offered in his defense. Appellant's

claim that he was prevented from calling witnesses lacks merit.

      Appellant's claim that his counsel substitute submitted the appeal form

without his consent is also unavailing.       Appellant does not identify any

arguments that were not raised or any other reason the form submitted was

harmful to his appeal. Appellant's counsel substitute raised every argument

                                                                            A-2235-21
                                        5
identified before the DHO and on this appeal. Even if the form was submitted

without his consent, appellant was not prejudiced.

      In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, "[t]he determination of

whether a remark constitutes a threat is made on the basis of an objective

analysis of whether the remark conveys a basis for fear." Jacobs v. Stephens,

139 N.J. 212, 222 (1995). The evidence established appellant told Officer

Peterson that he was "going to hurt somebody." The Department's determination

that appellant's statement constituted a threat was supported by substantial

credible evidence in the record and was not arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable. We accord deference to the Department's expertise and broad

discretionary powers to manage the State prisons. We do not perceive any basis

to disturb the Department's decision.

      To the extent we have not otherwise addressed appellant's arguments, they

are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(D) and (E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-2235-21
                                        6