Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2833-13T1
07-08-2015
JACQUAR STOKES, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Jacquar Stokes, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Andrew J. Sarrol, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Koblitz and Higbee. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Jacquar Stokes, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Andrew J. Sarrol, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Jacquar Stokes, presently an inmate at Bayside State Prison, appeals a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) entered on January 14, 2014, imposing disciplinary sanctions against him under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 for committing prohibited act number .052, making sexual proposals to another. Stokes is serving a lengthy prison term for aggravated manslaughter and eluding with substantial risk of physical injury. At the time of the violation, he was an inmate at Northern State Prison.
We use the spelling on the caption although the prison records spell appellant's name as Jaquar. --------
On December 20, 2013, Senior Corrections Officer A. Smith called out to inmates in the showers, urging them to hurry and get out for a "count up." Officer Smith asserts that Stokes opened the shower curtain, exposed himself to her, and said "I am about to cum. I'm going to put it in your ass[,]" while ejaculating in the shower. Immediately after, Officer Smith radioed her supervisors for assistance, and Stokes was escorted to detention.
The next day, December 21, 2013, a disciplinary investigation was conducted by a disciplinary sergeant, who found the charges had merit and warranted referral to a hearing officer. That same day, Stokes was served with written notice of the charge against him, to which he pled not guilty. Stokes was assigned substitute counsel at his request.
The initial hearing on Stokes' offense was scheduled for December 26, 2013, but was postponed and concluded on January 7, 2014. In his defense, Stokes claimed he was just telling Officer Smith that he "was coming" in response to her order to hurry. He argued that he did not intentionally expose himself. The hearing officer found Stokes guilty, and imposed a sentence of fifteen days of detention, a loss of sixty days of commutation time, and ninety days of administrative segregation.
Stokes then appealed to the Assistant Superintendent, who sustained the finding of guilt and related sanctions in a final agency decision dated January 14, 2014. The Superintendent noted that the "decision of the hearing officer is upheld" and "the sanction is appropriate." This appeal followed.
Stokes contends he was denied due process because the investigating officer was not present at the disciplinary hearing and the hearing was not conducted in a timely manner. Stokes also contends the hearing officer had no basis for finding Smith more credible than he was.
Our standard of review of the Department's administrative decision is limited. We must defer to the agency's exercise of its authority unless the appellant demonstrates the agency's decision was "arbitrary, capricious[,] or unreasonable[,] or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980). See also Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 222 (1995).
We have fully considered all of the procedural and substantive points raised by appellant, and are satisfied that they lack merit, particularly in light of our limited scope of review. There was substantial credible evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's finding that Officer Smith's description of the incident was reliable. This evidence included Stokes' own admission that he said some of the words alleged by Smith, even though he claimed she misunderstood them.
With respect to Stokes' contention that the hearing was not timely, we note that to have held the hearing in time would have required that it be scheduled in the midst of the holiday season, when many staff members take time off from work. As previously stated, the hearing was initially to commence the day after Christmas, but was postponed. The applicable regulation is N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c), which states, "Inmates confined in Prehearing Detention shall receive a hearing within three calendar days of their placement in Prehearing Detention, including weekends and holidays, unless there are exceptional circumstances, unavoidable delays or reasonable postponements." The hearing in this case was eventually completed on January 7, 2014, which is eighteen days after the incident. The reports indicate the hearing was postponed due to both holidays and weather delays. This long a delay would usually be unacceptable; however, we find the delay was within reason under the circumstances.
Finally, as to Stokes' complaint that the investigating officer was not present at the hearing, there is no dispute that Stokes and his substitute counsel received copies of the investigative reports. There is no requirement that the investigating officer be present. On the form signed by Stokes' substitute counsel, where he was given the opportunity to list adverse witnesses he wanted to cross-examine, it clearly states "none requested."
We are therefore satisfied that Stokes received the minimum level of due process necessary for prison disciplinary hearings as set forth in Avant v. Clifford, 61 N.J. 496, 528-33 (1915) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION