LENNOX RISDEN, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Petitioner Lennox Risden is an inmate of New Jersey State Prison, where he is serving a life sentence. He argues in this appeal that the administrative findings of various disciplinary infractions against him were, among other things, the product of procedural due process deprivations and not based on substantial credible evidence. We find no merit in these arguments and affirm.
The record on appeal reveals that as part of a lengthy investigation conducted by the Special Investigations Division of the Department of Corrections, Risden was charged in 2010, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4–4.1, with a number of disciplinary infractions, namely: *.009 (count one), which charged the misuse, possession, distribution, sale or intent to distribute or sell, an electronic communication device or other similar item; *.215 (count two), which charged possession with intent to distribute or sell prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants or related paraphernalia; and two counts of *.751 (counts three and four), which charged giving or offering any official or staff member a bribe or anything of value. Following postponements for a variety of reasons, the hearing resumed on March 1, 2012, and culminated in the hearing officer's findings against Risden on all four counts. The hearing officer imposed: fifteen days detention, 365 days administrative segregation, 365 days loss of commutation time, and 365 days loss of phone privileges on count one; permanent loss of contact visits, 365 days administrative segregation, referral for close custody status, and 365 days loss of contact visits on count two; fifteen days detention, 365 days administrative segregation, referral for close custody status, 365 days loss of contact visits, and referral for placement in the management control unit on count three; and 365 days administrative segregation, referral for close custody status, 365 days loss of contact visits, and ninety days loss of recreation privileges on count four.
Risden's administrative appeal resulted in the Department's upholding of the hearing officers' determinations in all respects. Risden appeals to this court, arguing that the hearing officer's decision: (1) violated his right to due process and should be vacated in the interest of justice; (2) was not based upon substantial credible evidence; (3) failed to articulate facts establishing his guilt; and (4) lacked specific findings. We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(D) and (E).