Download original court document
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-1717-13T3MICHAEL MARTINEZ,Appellant,v.NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS,Respondent._______________________________Submitted September 16, 2014 Decided September 23, 2014Before Judges Yannotti and Fasciale.On appeal from the New Jersey Department ofCorrections.Michael Martinez, appellant pro se.John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General,attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; LucyE. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on thebrief).PER CURIAMMichael Martinez appeals from an October 24, 2013, finalagencydecisionbytheNewJerseyDepartmentofCorrections(NJDOC)upholdingadeterminationthatheisguiltyofprohibited act *.215, possession of prohibited substances withintent to distribute, contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).Weaffirm.At approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2013, Martinezunsuccessfully attempted to walk through a metal detector at ahalfway house where he was confined.A manager asked him tostep aside and await further instructions, and a supervisor thenobserved Martinez pull a large bundle from his pants and toss iton the floor.The bundle contained a ziplock bag of syntheticmarijuana, six packs of cigarette rolling paper, eighteen bluntrolling papers, five packs of instant sanka coffee, and fourplastic gloves filled with clear liquid smelling of alcohol.A Hearing Officer (HO) conducted a hearing.Martinez plednot guilty, defended the matter using counsel substitute, andcross-examined the manager and supervisor by questioning them inwriting.Martinezdidnotcallanywitnesses.Martinezrequested permission to take a polygraph examination and to seevideosurveillancethathemistakenlybelievedcapturedtheincident.Both requests were denied.The HO found Martinezguilty.1Martinez filed an administrative appeal resulting inthe final decision under review.1The HO imposed varioussanctions,whichMartinezhasnotchallenged in this appeal.2A-1717-13T3On appeal, Martinez argues that the there was insufficientevidencetoconvicthimoftheinfractionandurgesusto”substitute [our] judgment” for that of the NJDOC.He alsocontends that he was denied due process by the decision to denyhis requests to review the video surveillance and submit to apolygraph examination.Our review of the NJDOC’s decision is limited.We willonly reverse when the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capriciousor unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidencein the record as a whole.Henry v. . . .