Court Opinion

ID: 9949321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 14:07:48.719533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:03.796345
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0747-22

IN THE MATTER OF
R.J.D.1

                  Submitted January 17, 2024 – Decided March 11, 2024

                  Before Judges Sumners and Rose.

                  On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                  Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. GP-0063-22.

                  Evan F. Nappen, Attorney At Law, PC, attorneys for
                  respondent (Louis P. Nappen, on the brief).

                  Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
                  attorney for respondent (Joie D. Piderit, Assistant
                  Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

         Petitioner R.J.D. appeals from an October 4, 2022 Law Division order

denying his pro se application for a permit to carry a handgun without a hearing.

We reverse and remand.

1
 We use initials in view of petitioner's contention that the conviction at issue
was expunged. See R. 1:38-3(c)(7).
      We summarize the pertinent facts and procedural history from the limited

record provided on appeal. In August 2022, R.J.D. applied for a permit to carry

a handgun.    In his permit application, R.J.D. answered, "No," to question

seventeen: "Have you ever been convicted of a disorderly persons offense[] that

has not been expunged or sealed?" According to a July 7, 2022 "New Jersey

State Police Fingerprint Identification System Automated Applicant Record,"

R.J.D. had no prior criminal record. Accordingly, the acting police chief for the

Monroe Township Police Department approved R.J.D.'s application.

      Thereafter, the court denied R.J.D.'s application.     The accompanying

order tersely stated the application was denied for "Falsification of Application

and Criminal Record," and noted R.J.D. had a disqualifying conviction for

contempt of a domestic violence order, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a)(17).2

      On appeal, R.J.D. raises the following points for our consideration:

                                   POINT 1

             THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY DENYING
             PETITIONER HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF
             NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD PER
             THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT'S DECISION

2
  The order also referenced N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1), which prohibits a person
who has been convicted of certain domestic violence offenses from obtaining "a
permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms identification card." See also
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c) (incorporating the disqualifying criteria stated in N.J.S.A.
2C:58-3(c)).
                                                                             A-0747-22
                                       2
              IN [IN RE ]CARLSTROM, 240 N.J. 563 (2020), AND
              ATTORNEY GENERAL DIRECTIVE #06-19.[3]
              ([Not raised below.])
                                    POINT 2

              THE COURT BELOW ERRED BECAUSE
              PETITIONER         DID    NOT  FALSIFY  AN
              APPLICATION FOR "A FIREARMS PURCHASER
              IDENTIFICATION         CARD"  OR  "HANDGUN
              PURCHASE         PERMIT"   AS  ELEMENTALLY
              REQUIRED FOR A FINDING UNDER N.J.S.A.
              2C:58-3[(c)](3).

                                    POINT 3

              PER BRUEN,[4] [THE] GOVERNMENT MUST
              DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REGULATION(S) AT
              ISSUE DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HIS SECOND
              AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH
              THIS NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF
              FIREARM REGULATION.
              ([Not raised below.])

                                     POINT 4

              IT IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT ANY
              OPINION REFERENCE PETITIONER BY HIS
              INITIALS.
              ([Not raised below.])

3
   Admin. Off. of the Cts., Administrative Directive #06-19: Criminal -
Procedures for Processing Gun Permits (May 20, 2019) (2019 directive).
4
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
                                                                             A-0747-22
                                        3
      More particularly, R.J.D. argues the court violated his right to due process

by failing to comply with the 2019 Directive and the Court's decision in

Carlstrom.   Noting his July 2022 State Police criminal background check

disclosed no prior record and he was previously issued a New Jersey firearms

purchaser identification card, R.J.D. contends the trial court failed to explain the

basis for its determination that he had a disqualifying conviction. Generally

referencing "an order of expungement," R.J.D. claims he was not afforded notice

or an opportunity to respond to the court's concerns.

      The State counters a hearing was unnecessary because R.J.D. was

statutorily ineligible for issuance of a carry permit in view of his conviction and

falsification of his application. Acknowledging the court cannot rely "entirely

upon hearsay evidence," see Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36, 52 (1972), the State

argues the court's decision was based on "official court records," establishing in

August 2004, R.J.D. pled guilty to contempt, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(2), a

disorderly persons offense. To support its argument, the State included in its

appellate appendix three screenshots of the "Family Automated Case Tracking

System" pertaining to R.J.D.'s guilty plea. In reply, R.J.D. argues "[b]ecause

there was no hearing," the screenshots were not presented to the trial court.

                                                                              A-0747-22
                                         4
      In Carlstrom, our Supreme Court explained the procedural requirements

for hearings before the Law Division following the approval of a permit to carry

a handgun by the chief of police of a municipality or the superintendent of the

New Jersey State Police under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c) and the 2019 Directive. 240

N.J. at 571-72. Pursuant to the 2019 Directive, the trial court was required to

hold a hearing if it "ha[d] any questions regarding the applicant or" the pending

application. Id. at 565 (quoting the 2019 Directive, at 3). The 2019 Directive

mandated a hearing "whenever the court contemplate[d] denying a handgun

carry-permit that ha[d] been approved by the police chief or superintendent."

Id. at 572. Further, the court was required to "issue a notice scheduling a hearing

with an accompanying statement of reasons for its intent to deny the

application." Ibid. The applicant therefore was afforded the opportunity to

demonstrate that the standard was satisfied and to answer any questions posed

by the court. Ibid.

      Following the trial court's decision in the present matter, the Legislature

amended N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d). L. 2022, c. 131, § 3, eff. Dec. 22, 2022. Under

the revised statutory scheme, "determinations on applications for permits to

carry a handgun" no longer are "made by the court," Admin. Off. of the Cts.,

Administrative Directive #14-22: Criminal - Gun Permit Procedures (Dec. 22,

                                                                             A-0747-22
                                        5
2022). Instead, the determination is made by a municipality's police chief or the

State Police superintendent. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c). The December 22, 2022

amendments also modified the "disqualifying criteria set forth in" N.J.S.A.

2C:58-3(c)(5), which the court considers in determining whether an applicant is

entitled to a permit to carry a handgun under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c).5

      We need not determine whether the court's failure to provide the reasons

supporting its intent to deny R.J.D.'s application violated his right to due

process. Instead, the court's failure to abide by the notice requirement, as

explained in Carlstrom, provides a sufficient basis to vacate the October 4, 2022

order denying R.J.D.'s application and remand the matter for a hearing. On

remand, the court shall consider the arguments presented, decide the issues

based on the record, and make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of

law supporting its decision. R. 1:7-4. In doing so, the court shall comply with

the notice and hearing requirements the Court imposed in Carlstrom. Id. at 572-

5
  While the appeal was pending, the State filed a letter pursuant to Rule 2:6-
11(d), addressing our recent decision in Matter of M.U.'s Application for a
Handgun Purchase Permit, 475 N.J. Super. 148, 194-96 (App. Div. 2023), where
we found the December 2022 amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 and -3(c)
applicable to applications submitted on or after the amendments' effective date.
Because R.J.D.'s application pre-dates the amendments' effective date, they do
not apply here. See M.U., 475 N.J. Super. at 195; see State v. Wade, 476 N.J.
Super. 490, 510 (App. Div. 2023).
                                                                           A-0747-22
                                       6
73. Nothing in this opinion shall be interpreted as expressing a preferred

outcome on any of the issues that may be presented by the parties on remand.

      Reversed and remanded for a hearing. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                        A-0747-22
                                      7