Court Opinion

ID: 9946787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:18:25.931129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:42.539448
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2399-21

IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF
ROBERT GOWOREK'S
APPLICATION FOR A FIREARMS
PURCHASER IDENTIFICATION
CARD AND THREE HANDGUN
PURCHASE PERMITS & IN THE
MATTER OF THE REVOCATION
OF ROBERT GOWOREK'S
FIREARMS PURCHASER
IDENTIFICATION CARD AND
COMPELLING THE SALE OF HIS
FIREARMS.
______________________________

                Submitted January 24, 2024 – Decided March 1, 2024

                Before Judges Susswein and Vanek.

                On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
                GPA-0017-21.

                Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law, PC, attorneys for
                appellant Robert Goworek (Louis P. Nappen, on the
                briefs).
            Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
            respondent State of New Jersey (K. Charles Deutsch,
            Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Petitioner, Robert Goworek, appeals a January 10, 2022 Law Division

order denying his appeal from a police chief's denial of his application for a

replacement firearms purchaser identification card (FPIC) and three handgun

purchase permits, and granting the State's motion to compel the sale of the

firearms he already owned. Goworek also appeals a February 28, 2022 Law

Division order denying his motion for reconsideration.     After convening a

hearing, the trial court rejected the State's contention Goworek knowingly

falsified his application, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3). The court also rejected the

State's contention that issuance of the FPIC and purchase permits "would not

be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare," N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

3(c)(5). However, the trial court ruled Goworek was ineligible for an FPIC or

purchase permit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1) because he was previously

convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New York. That out-of-state

conviction was the sole basis for the trial court's conclusion Goworek was not

eligible to possess a firearm.

                                                                       A-2399-21
                                     2
      On appeal, the State concedes N.J.S.A. 2C:44-4(c) was amended shortly

before the hearing so that only a prior out-of-state conviction with a sentence

in excess of one year could be a basis for disqualification under N.J.S.A.

2C:58-3(c)(1). The parties do not dispute the New York DWI offense for

which Goworek was convicted has a maximum sentence of one year.

Accordingly, that conviction cannot serve as the basis for disqualifying

Goworek from obtaining or possessing a firearm. As the State acknowledges,

the Law Division order denying Goworek's application and revoking his FPIC

must be reversed and vacated.

                                      I.

      We discern the following salient facts and procedural history from the

record.   Although Goworek possessed an FPIC, he applied for a new one

because his address changed. He also applied for three handgun purchase

permits. In April 2021, the Chief of the Oakland Police Department denied the

applications because of Goworek's 1994 DWI conviction in New York State.

      Goworek appealed to the Law Division. The State filed a cross-motion

seeking to revoke Goworek's existing FPIC and to compel the sale of his

existing firearms. After the January 6, 2022 hearing, the trial court denied

Goworek's appeal and granted the State's motion to revoke his existing FPIC

                                                                        A-2399-21
                                     3
and compel the sale of his firearms because he had previously been convicted

of a crime.

      On January 10, 2022, the trial court issued an order granting the State's

application to compel the sale of Goworek's firearms predicated on the denial

of his appeal, which reads in part:

              and it is further

              ORDERED that the State's motion for the revocation
              of Robert Goworek's existing [FPIC] and compelling
              the sale of his firearms is hereby GRANTED because
              he has been convicted of a crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
              3(c)(1); and it is further

              …
              ORDERED that Robert Goworek shall immediately
              contact the Oakland Police Department and coordinate
              the immediate surrender of his [FPIC] firearms, and
              ammunition, that are in his custody or control, or
              which he possesses or owns, including but not limited
              to, the following firearms:

                    ....

Additionally, the trial court ordered Goworek to arrange for the sale of his

firearms with a Federal Firearms License dealer within 120 days; if he did not

arrange for a sale, the firearms would be subject to destruction. Goworek

moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied at a February 28, 2022

hearing.

                                                                        A-2399-21
                                       4
      Goworek raises the following contentions relevant to the surrender of the

firearms for our consideration: the court below erred when it ordered the

compelled sale of firearms that appellant already owns or possesses; the court

below erred by ordering a forfeiture of firearms pursuant to no statute

authorizing forfeiture of firearms; the court below erred because N.J.S.A.

2C:58-3(f) provides no basis to compel sale (i.e., forfeiture) of firearms; the

compelled sale of petitioner's firearms by the court below constitutes an

unconstitutional seizure; the court below erred by failing to allow the jury trial

demanded by petitioner pursuant to [State of New Jersey v.] [O]ne 1990 Honda

Accord, [154 N.J. 373 (1988)] regarding the forfeiture of his property; per

N.J.S.[A.] 2C:58-3[(d)], "no filing fee shall be required" for firearm permit

appeals, and appellant should be reimbursed the filing fee that was demanded

of him.

      In his reply brief, appellant argues "issues concerning [appellant's]

firearms are not moot because [appellant] should not be saddled with an ad

infinitum order authorizing government to seize firearms from [appellant's]

residence and mandating that [appellant] may not possess firearms (in

violation of his Second Amendment rights) when [appellant] is not a certain

person not to possess firearms."

                                                                           A-2399-21
                                       5
                                       II.

      We are bound to accept the trial court's fact findings if they are

supported by substantial credible evidence.      In re Return of Weapons to

J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 116 (1997). However, our review of "a trial court's legal

conclusions regarding firearms licenses [is] de novo."      In re N.J. Firearms

Purchaser Identification Card by Z.K., 440 N.J. Super. 394, 397 (App. Div.

2015).

      N.J.S.A. 2C:44-4(c), which defines "[p]rior conviction in another

jurisdiction," was amended in November 2021.         L. 2021, c. 298, § 2.       It

originally read "[a] conviction in another jurisdiction shall constitute a prior

conviction of a crime if a sentence of imprisonment in excess of [six] months

was authorized under the law of the other jurisdiction." (Emphasis added). As

a result of the November 2021 amendment, the statute now reads in pertinent

part: "[a] conviction in another jurisdiction shall constitute a prior conviction

of a crime if a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year was authorized

under the law of the other jurisdiction." (Emphasis added). This amendment

went into effect on November 8, 2021—two months prior to the hearing in this

matter.

                                                                          A-2399-21
                                       6
      It is undisputed the DWI offense, §1193(1)(b)(i) of the New York

Vehicle and Traffic Laws, is classified as a misdemeanor punishable by

maximum term of imprisonment of not more than a year.              In making his

determination, the trial      judge explained      "[a]   conviction   in   another

jurisdiction . . . shall constitute a prior conviction of a crime if a sentence of

imprisonment in excess of six months . . . was authorized under the law of the

other jurisdiction."   However, the judge was relying on the statute pre-

amendment. The State concedes Goworek's prior conviction does not support

disqualification under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, and that Goworek "should not have

had his FPIC denied and his existing FPIC revoked based on the fact that he

had previously been convicted of a crime."

      That concession also impacts the trial court's forfeiture order. As noted,

the trial court's order makes clear "the State's motion for the revocation of

Robert Goworek's existing [FPIC] and compelling the sale of his firearms is

hereby GRANTED because he has been convicted of a crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

3(c)(1)." Because Goworek was not convicted of a crime within the meaning

of Title 2C, the basis for the forfeiture order evaporates.

      In Matter of M.U.'s Application for a Handgun Purchase Permit, the

State attempted to compel the sale of the appellant's firearms under N.J.S.A.

                                                                             A-2399-21
                                        7
2C:58-3(f).    475 N.J. Super. 148, 199 (App. Div. 2023).            That statute

provides:

              A [FPIC] shall be void if the holder becomes subject
              to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of
              this section, whereupon the card shall be returned
              within five days by the holder to the superintendent,
              who shall then advise the licensing authority. Failure
              of the holder to return the [FPIC] to the superintendent
              within the five days shall be an offense under
              subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:39-10. Any [FPIC] may be
              revoked by the Superior Court of the county wherein
              the card was issued, after hearing upon notice, upon a
              finding that the holder thereof no longer qualifies for
              the issuance of the permit. The county prosecutor of
              any county, the chief police officer of any
              municipality or any citizen may apply to the court at
              any time for the revocation of the card.

              [N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f).]

We held N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f) "provides no basis for the forfeiture of firearms

already possessed." M.U., 475 N.J. Super. at 199.

      While the same principle applies in this matter, we agree with the State

that Goworek's arguments pertaining to the forfeiture of his firearms are moot.

He testified he transferred his guns to a licensed firearms dealer. If Gow orek

received compensation for them, we deem the present matter closed.        See id.

at 202 (noting "[a]n appeal issue is moot if the appellant 'is not entitled to any

                                                                           A-2399-21
                                        8
affirmative relief.'") (quoting Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atl. Ins. Co. of N.J., 194

N.J. 474, 484 (2008)).

         We note that in his reply brief, Goworek argues,

               [i]ssues concerning [p]etitioner's firearms are not
               moot because [p]etitioner should not be saddled with
               an ad infinitum order authorizing government to seize
               firearms from petitioner's residence and mandating
               that [p]etitioner may not possess firearms (in violation
               of his Second Amendment rights) when [p]etitioner is
               not a certain person not to possess firearms.

         We agree Goworek cannot be "saddled" with an order that has no lawful

basis. We address that concern by remanding for the trial court to vacate the

order.

         In view of the State's concession Goworek is not subject to a disability

under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) and given the trial court's determination he is not

subject to any other disability under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, we need not address

Goworek's constitutional arguments.          See In re Appeal of the Denial of

R.W.T.'s Application, ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2023) (slip op. at 5)

("Courts should not reach a constitutional question unless its resolution is

imperative to the disposition of litigation.") (quoting Randolph Town Ctr., L.P.

v. Cnty. of Morris, 186 N.J. 78, 80 (2006)).

                                                                          A-2399-21
                                         9
        Finally, we consider Goworek's contention that "[p]er N.J.S.[A.] 2C:58-

3D, 'no filing fee shall be required' for firearm permit appeals, and appellant

should be reimbursed the filing fee that was demanded of him." The record

shows Goworek's counsel sent a letter to the trial court that reads in pertinent

part:

              Mr. Goworek has been aggrieved by his denial of
              application for a New Jersey [FPIC] by the Oakland
              Police Department by way of letter from [the] Chief of
              Police [], (see attached). As per N.J.S.[A.] 2C:58-
              3[(d)], I respectfully request a hearing on his behalf.
              Kindly notify our office regarding any court dates or
              other matters pertaining to the above.

              Enclosed, please find our firm's check in the amount
              of $50.00 payable to the "Treasurer State of New
              Jersey."

Goworek's appendix includes a photocopy of the check for fifty dollars made

out to "Treasurer State of New Jersey," with the memo line reading "Robert

Goworek- FPIC Appeal Paid Under Protest/All rights reserved."

        It appears this fee was not assessed or solicited by the court; rather the

payment was sent on counsel's own initiative. We nonetheless believe the

fifty-dollar payment should be refunded because no fee is required to have a

Law Division hearing as to the appeal of the denial of an FPIC or purchase

permit.

                                                                           A-2399-21
                                       10
      Reversed and remanded to vacate the January 10, 2022 order and refund

the Law Division filing fee payment. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                      A-2399-21
                                    11