NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0701-24
ALEX COLON,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted October 22, 2025 – Decided December 12, 2025
Before Judges Currier and Jablonski.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Alex Colon, self-represented appellant.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth Merrill, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Appellant Alex Colon, an incarcerated person, appeals from a final
agency decision by respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC)
finding him guilty of prohibited acts *.202, *.708, *.009 under N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a) and imposing sanctions including a total of 500 days in the
Restricted Housing Unit (RHU). Since we are satisfied the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer's (DHO) decision was based on substantial and credible
evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, we affirm.
I.
When appellant was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, Officers C.
Anastasio and M. Patella initiated a "non-routine" search of appellant's cell.
The officers ordered appellant and his cellmate to exit their unit and to submit
to a pat-frisk. Subsequently, they escorted appellant to a separate area for a
strip search. During this process, appellant failed to "clear," that is, he
triggered the metal detectors three times. In response, Officer Anastasio
instructed appellant to place his hands on his head and repeatedly inquired
whether appellant had any weapons on his person. Appellant maintains he
answered "no," but the DOC contends appellant did not respond.
The officers moved appellant to a conference room and repeated their
questions about weapons and also asked about appellant's possession of any
A-0701-24 2 cell phones. Officer Patella directed appellant to face a wall and remove his
shoes and shirt and submit to a strip-search. Appellant complied. However,
when appellant was ordered to remove his pants, appellant "suddenly and
violently spun around and slammed what was at the time an unknown object
on the floor." Unsure if the object was a weapon, the officers restrained and
handcuffed appellant. They secured the item and later identified it as a cell
phone.
The officers searched appellant's cell and recovered several prohibited
items including: an altered, hollowed-out tablet; an altered JPay tablet charger
with an iPhone charger attached; an altered foot locker lock, requiring bolt
cutters for removal; an L8 Star mini cell phone charging block; the back cover
of another cell phone; a cell phone charger; a charging block; various
electronics and wires; three large pieces of metal; and an Ibanez multi -tool
case containing Allen keys, screwdrivers, and a mini socket wrench.
Appellant was charged with several prohibited acts under N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a) including *.202 (possession or introduction of a weapon, such as,
but not limited to, a sharpened instrument, knife, or unauthorized tool); *.708
(refusal to submit to a search); *.256 (refusing to obey an order of any staff
member); *.009 (misuse, possession, distribution, sale, or intent to distribute
A-0701-24 3 or sell, an electronic communication device, equipment, or peripheral capable
of transmitting, receiving, or storing data and/or electronically transmitting a
message, image, or data that is not authorized for use or retention while
assigned to a secure correctional facility).
A disciplinary hearing was scheduled and appellant's request for the
assistance of a counsel substitute was granted.
Following a hearing before DHO G. Nolley, the *.256 charge was
dismissed as repetitive to *.708. Appellant pled guilty to *.009, not guilty to
*.708, and entered no plea to *.202. Appellant and counsel substitute were
given an opportunity to make statements for each charge. Appellant declined
the opportunity to present witnesses or confront adverse witnesses.
Regarding *.009, appellant asserted that the phone was not his, though
counsel substitute stated, "[he] takes responsibility," and requested leniency.
For *.708, appellant stated, "I didn't refuse. He didn't tell me not to throw the
[sic] phone on the floor. I didn't handle it the best[,] but I don't think I
refused." On *.202, appellant admitted ownership of those items, but also
noted "[t]hey are not weapons. I used them to fix my word processor."
Counsel substitute added, "He said it was not a weapon," and requested
leniency and dismissal of the charge.
A-0701-24 4 After reviewing the evidence, and considering appellant's statements, the
DHO found appellant guilty of *.202 and *.708, and accepted his guilty plea to
*.009. The DHO relied on twenty-eight exhibits, including photographs of the
seized items and reports by Officers Anastasio, Patella, and Sergeant Walling
to support her decision.
With regard to *.009, the DHO noted appellant accepted responsibility,
with no further explanation except admitting the phone was his. The DHO
imposed ten days in the Adjustment Unit (AU); 300 days in the RHU; 300
days loss of commutation time (LOCT); thirty days loss of recreational
privileges (LORP); and thirty days loss of email, JPay, tablet, media, and
canteen privileges. The DHO substantiated these sanctions stating appellant
"needs to follow [rules and regulations] to understand the safety issues
involved in having an electronic device," and cited appellant's admission of
guilt.
For *.202, the DHO referenced multiple items found in appellant's
possession, including a metal bar, a metal blade, and several wrenches and
screwdrivers, all of which are considered contraband. Despite appellant's
claim that these were needed to repair a word processor, the DHO found that
"[h]is weapons could have injured himself, his cellmate and staff." For this
A-0701-24 5 offense, the DHO ordered service of 200 days in RHU; 200 days LOCT; thirty
days LORP; and thirty days loss of radio and television privileges. Supporting
that decision, the DHO noted these "weapons are very serious" and appellant
"needs to realize he put himself at risk of injury."
For *.708, the DHO acknowledged appellant initially complied with the
officers, however "[h]e decided to stop complying and became violent with his
actions," and "threw objects while they were trying to complete the search."
No additional sanctions were imposed for this charge. The DHO
acknowledged appellant "took some responsibility for his behavior" and
understood he endangered himself and the officers.
Appellant appealed the DHO's decision. Assistant Superintendent
Douglas Stark affirmed both the guilty findings and sanctions, concluding:
There was compliance with [Title] 10A provision on inmate discipline which prescribe procedural due process safeguard[s]. Further, there [was] no mis[in]terpretation of the facts.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0701-24
ALEX COLON,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted October 22, 2025 – Decided December 12, 2025
Before Judges Currier and Jablonski.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Alex Colon, self-represented appellant.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth Merrill, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Appellant Alex Colon, an incarcerated person, appeals from a final
agency decision by respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC)
finding him guilty of prohibited acts *.202, *.708, *.009 under N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a) and imposing sanctions including a total of 500 days in the
Restricted Housing Unit (RHU). Since we are satisfied the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer's (DHO) decision was based on substantial and credible
evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, we affirm.
I.
When appellant was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, Officers C.
Anastasio and M. Patella initiated a "non-routine" search of appellant's cell.
The officers ordered appellant and his cellmate to exit their unit and to submit
to a pat-frisk. Subsequently, they escorted appellant to a separate area for a
strip search. During this process, appellant failed to "clear," that is, he
triggered the metal detectors three times. In response, Officer Anastasio
instructed appellant to place his hands on his head and repeatedly inquired
whether appellant had any weapons on his person. Appellant maintains he
answered "no," but the DOC contends appellant did not respond.
The officers moved appellant to a conference room and repeated their
questions about weapons and also asked about appellant's possession of any
A-0701-24 2 cell phones. Officer Patella directed appellant to face a wall and remove his
shoes and shirt and submit to a strip-search. Appellant complied. However,
when appellant was ordered to remove his pants, appellant "suddenly and
violently spun around and slammed what was at the time an unknown object
on the floor." Unsure if the object was a weapon, the officers restrained and
handcuffed appellant. They secured the item and later identified it as a cell
phone.
The officers searched appellant's cell and recovered several prohibited
items including: an altered, hollowed-out tablet; an altered JPay tablet charger
with an iPhone charger attached; an altered foot locker lock, requiring bolt
cutters for removal; an L8 Star mini cell phone charging block; the back cover
of another cell phone; a cell phone charger; a charging block; various
electronics and wires; three large pieces of metal; and an Ibanez multi -tool
case containing Allen keys, screwdrivers, and a mini socket wrench.
Appellant was charged with several prohibited acts under N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a) including *.202 (possession or introduction of a weapon, such as,
but not limited to, a sharpened instrument, knife, or unauthorized tool); *.708
(refusal to submit to a search); *.256 (refusing to obey an order of any staff
member); *.009 (misuse, possession, distribution, sale, or intent to distribute
A-0701-24 3 or sell, an electronic communication device, equipment, or peripheral capable
of transmitting, receiving, or storing data and/or electronically transmitting a
message, image, or data that is not authorized for use or retention while
assigned to a secure correctional facility).
A disciplinary hearing was scheduled and appellant's request for the
assistance of a counsel substitute was granted.
Following a hearing before DHO G. Nolley, the *.256 charge was
dismissed as repetitive to *.708. Appellant pled guilty to *.009, not guilty to
*.708, and entered no plea to *.202. Appellant and counsel substitute were
given an opportunity to make statements for each charge. Appellant declined
the opportunity to present witnesses or confront adverse witnesses.
Regarding *.009, appellant asserted that the phone was not his, though
counsel substitute stated, "[he] takes responsibility," and requested leniency.
For *.708, appellant stated, "I didn't refuse. He didn't tell me not to throw the
[sic] phone on the floor. I didn't handle it the best[,] but I don't think I
refused." On *.202, appellant admitted ownership of those items, but also
noted "[t]hey are not weapons. I used them to fix my word processor."
Counsel substitute added, "He said it was not a weapon," and requested
leniency and dismissal of the charge.
A-0701-24 4 After reviewing the evidence, and considering appellant's statements, the
DHO found appellant guilty of *.202 and *.708, and accepted his guilty plea to
*.009. The DHO relied on twenty-eight exhibits, including photographs of the
seized items and reports by Officers Anastasio, Patella, and Sergeant Walling
to support her decision.
With regard to *.009, the DHO noted appellant accepted responsibility,
with no further explanation except admitting the phone was his. The DHO
imposed ten days in the Adjustment Unit (AU); 300 days in the RHU; 300
days loss of commutation time (LOCT); thirty days loss of recreational
privileges (LORP); and thirty days loss of email, JPay, tablet, media, and
canteen privileges. The DHO substantiated these sanctions stating appellant
"needs to follow [rules and regulations] to understand the safety issues
involved in having an electronic device," and cited appellant's admission of
guilt.
For *.202, the DHO referenced multiple items found in appellant's
possession, including a metal bar, a metal blade, and several wrenches and
screwdrivers, all of which are considered contraband. Despite appellant's
claim that these were needed to repair a word processor, the DHO found that
"[h]is weapons could have injured himself, his cellmate and staff." For this
A-0701-24 5 offense, the DHO ordered service of 200 days in RHU; 200 days LOCT; thirty
days LORP; and thirty days loss of radio and television privileges. Supporting
that decision, the DHO noted these "weapons are very serious" and appellant
"needs to realize he put himself at risk of injury."
For *.708, the DHO acknowledged appellant initially complied with the
officers, however "[h]e decided to stop complying and became violent with his
actions," and "threw objects while they were trying to complete the search."
No additional sanctions were imposed for this charge. The DHO
acknowledged appellant "took some responsibility for his behavior" and
understood he endangered himself and the officers.
Appellant appealed the DHO's decision. Assistant Superintendent
Douglas Stark affirmed both the guilty findings and sanctions, concluding:
There was compliance with [Title] 10A provision on inmate discipline which prescribe procedural due process safeguard[s]. Further, there [was] no mis[in]terpretation of the facts. The decision of the [DHO] was based on substantial evidence. The sanctions imposed by the [DHO are] appropriate for the infraction[s]. [Appellant's] request for reduced or suspended sanction is denied. All sanctions are approved.
On appeal, appellant argues the DHO's decision to convict him of *.708
(refusal) was infirm because he presented evidence that he did not refuse to
A-0701-24 6 submit to a search. He also contends the imposed sanction was improper
because it exceeded the legislative mandate capping the maximum RHU
sanction for any prohibited act to not exceed 365 days. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(a).
DOC argues in opposition that its final decision should be affirmed
because both the guilty adjudications and the imposed sanctions comport with
administrative regulations.
II.
Our review of an agency's decision is limited. Mejia v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.,
446 N.J. Super. 369, 376 (App. Div. 2016). In reviewing the DOC's decision,
we presume the validity of the DOC's "exercise of its statutorily delegated
responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014); In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). Further, our role is "limited to determining: (1)
whether the [DOC]'s decision conforms with relevant law; (2) whether the
decision is supported by substantial[,] credible evidence in the record; and (3)
whether, in applying the law to the facts, the [DOC] clearly erred in reaching
its conclusion." Conley v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 452 N.J. Super. 605, 613 (App.
Div. 2018) (citing Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194).
"We will disturb an agency's adjudicatory decision only upon a finding
that the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable,' or is unsupported 'by
A-0701-24 7 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)). In the context of inmate
discipline, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5(a) requires a finding of guilt on a disciplinary
charge to be based on "substantial evidence." "Substantial evidence has been
defined alternatively as 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion,' and 'evidence furnishing a reasonable basis
for the agency's action.'" Blanchard, 461 N.J. Super at 238 (quoting Figueroa
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010)). The
substantial evidence standard permits an agency to apply its expertise where
the evidence supports more than one conclusion. Berta v. N.J. State Parole
Bd., 473 N.J. Super. 284, 302 (App. Div. 2022).
The party challenging an agency's decision bears the burden of proving
it was "arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious." In re M.M., 463 N.J. Super.
128, 136 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347
N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)). Our review is not "'perfunctory,' nor
is 'our function . . . merely [to] rubberstamp an agency's decision.'" Blanchard,
461 N.J. Super. at 239 (alteration in original) (quoting Figueroa, 414 N.J.
Super. at 191). Instead, we "engage in a 'careful and principled consideration
A-0701-24 8 of the agency record and findings.'" Ibid. (quoting Williams v. Dep't of Corr.,
330 N.J. Super. 197, 204 (App. Div. 2000)). We review an agency's statutory
interpretation or other legal determination de novo. Conley, 452 N.J. Super. at
613.
Under this deferential standard, we are satisfied the record contains
sufficient, credible evidence to support the DOC's final agency decision as to
appellant's guilt and the sanctions were legal, appropriate and neither arbitrary,
capricious, nor unreasonable. See Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194; In re Carter,
191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007).
A.
In finding appellant guilty of the three charged offenses, the DHO
appropriately relied on appellant's own admission, reports from investigating
officers, and numerous photographs of the seized items. The record clearly
shows that appellant possessed a cell phone in violation of *.009 and had
control over various contraband items, including pieces of metal, a multi -tool,
and Allen keys, among other objects classified as "altered" to support the
*.202 allegations.
We find no merit in the semantic distinction raised by appellant between
the use of the word "refusal" in *.708 and the prohibition against "refusing to
A-0701-24 9 obey an order of a staff member" under *.256. This argument is contradicted
by the facts in the record. As documented in the officers' reports and accepted
by the DHO, after appellant failed to clear a metal detector three times and did
not respond when repeatedly asked whether he had any weapons, he "suddenly
and violently" spun around during a strip search and slammed an unidentified
object onto the floor. The violent nature of these actions prevented the officers
from completing their search. Despite the fact appellant did not verbally
refuse, his actions prohibited officers from conducting the search rising to the
level of the prohibited conduct under *.708.
B.
We discern no error in the imposition of the administrative sanctions
corresponding to the DHO's findings of guilt . Prohibited acts *.009 and *.202
are classified as Class A offenses under DOC regulations. See N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(viii). Class A offenses are designated as the "most severe"
among the five classes of prohibited acts that may be committed by a prison
inmate. Ibid. DOC regulations establish the parameters for sanctions that may
be imposed for the commission of a Class A prohibited act. Specifically, the
authorized sanctions for a Class A offense include up to fifteen days in an AU,
A-0701-24 10 up to 365 days in the RHU per incident, and one or more of the sanctions listed
at N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(e) and N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1).
We are not persuaded that the sanctions imposed for this violation
exceeded those authorized by DOC regulations. In particular, N.J.A.C. 10A:4 -
5.1(a) that caps "the maximum administrative segregation sanction for any
prohibited act or acts resulting from a single incident shall not exceed 365
days." Contrary to appellant's arguments, the disciplinary infractions
committed by appellant did not arise from a single incident but resulted from
distinct events. Although they occurred on the same day, each involved
specific and separate prohibited conduct.
Affirmed.
A-0701-24 11