INTHE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THREE PERMITS TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN BY P.A.P

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4916-14T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION FOR THREE
PERMITS TO PURCHASE A
HANDGUN BY P.A.P.
__________________________________________

           Submitted October 26, 2016 – Decided March 1, 2018

           Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.

           On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
           Law Division, Burlington County.

           Jef Henninger, attorney for appellant P.A.P.

           Robert   D.   Bernardi,   Burlington   County
           Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of
           New Jersey (Courtney J. O'Brien, Assistant
           Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

     The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

     P.A.P. appeals from the order of the Law Division, Criminal

Part, that upheld the decision of the Pemberton Township Chief of

Police denying his application for three permits to purchase

handguns, as required under 
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3.             He argues that the

trial court's decision was not supported by sufficient legally

competent evidence.       Appellant also challenges the part of the
court's ruling that orders the forfeiture of four specifically

identified firearms and directs him to surrender "any additional

firearms that he owns or that are within his custody or control[.]"

He argues that the forfeiture of these firearms "contradicts" an

earlier decision made by the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office

(BCPO) to return to him these same firearms.

     We reject these arguments and affirm. We derive the following

facts from the testimony of the Chief of the Pemberton Township

Police Department in the evidentiary hearing conducted by the

trial court, as well as the documents admitted in the course of

the hearing.

                                I

     Pursuant to 
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, on November 7, 2014, P.A.P.

applied to the Chief of the Pemberton Township Police Department

for the issuance of a firearms purchaser identification card to

purchase three handguns.     Chief David Jantas assigned Kelsey

Knudson, a civilian "police aide," to investigate the application

and "generate a report based on the information that she learned

during her investigation."    As described by Chief Jantas, the

investigation followed a "checklist" provided by the New Jersey

State Police (NJSP) of areas the investigator was "supposed to

screen and try to obtain information about the applicant."       The

investigator reviewed criminal history data bases, the Family

                                2                           A-4916-14T4
Automated Case Tracking System (FACTS) used and maintained by the

Chancery Division, Family Part, the applicant's motor vehicle

records maintained by the Motor Vehicle Commission, and the New

Jersey Domestic Violence Registry.1

       In the course of her investigation, Knudson discovered that

several      complaints    had    been   filed   against   appellant   alleging

grounds for relief under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,


N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.              A review of these domestic violence

records revealed that appellant's former wife and a woman with

whom    he    previously    had    a     romantic   relationship,   had     filed


1
    Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34:

              The Administrative Office of the Courts shall
              establish and maintain a central registry of
              all persons who have had domestic violence
              restraining orders entered against them, all
              persons who have been charged with a crime or
              offense involving domestic violence, and all
              persons who have been charged with a violation
              of a court order involving domestic violence.
              All records made pursuant to this section
              shall be kept confidential and shall be
              released only to:

                   . . . .

              b. A police or other law enforcement agency
              investigating a report of domestic violence,
              or conducting a background investigation
              involving a person's application for a firearm
              permit or employment as a police or law
              enforcement officer or for any other purpose
              authorized by law or the Supreme Court of the
              State of New Jersey[.]

                                           3                              A-4916-14T4
complaints alleging domestic violence, resulting in a total of

eight domestic restraining orders between 1993 and 2011.

    The trial judge found, and the record supports, that six of

the eight domestic violence complaints were filed by appellant's

former wife.      The other two domestic violence complaints were

filed by his paramour.       Four of the complaints resulted in the

issuance of final restraining orders, requiring the BCPO to seize

appellant's firearms on each of these four separate occasions.

All eight restraining orders were eventually dismissed by the

Family Part upon the plaintiffs' request.

    The allegations of domestic violence made by the plaintiffs

in their complaints against appellant involved serious acts of

physical violence and sexual assault.          Specifically, a Domestic

Violence Incident Report states:

            Aug[ust] 2010, . . . [appellant] was sexually
            aggressive and forced [plaintiff] to engage
            in oral and anal sex. [Appellant] put
            [plaintiff's] head in toilet and urinated on
            her head. [Appellant] forced [plaintiff] to
            stay in bed.      [Appellant] has shown up
            unexpectedly behind [plaintiff] at ATM machine
            and driven by her home. [Appellant] suffers
            from PTSD and refuses to get treatment.

    Following     these   allegations,     police       officers    contacted

appellant   and   informed   him   that   he   needed    to    surrender   his

firearms.    Appellant told the officers that his firearms were at

his brother's home in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.                 Carlisle Police

                                    4                                 A-4916-14T4
Officers who responded to appellant's brother's residence did not

find any firearms. Police eventually found and seized the firearms

at the residence of a friend of appellant in Browns Mills, an

unincorporated community located in Pemberton Township, Burlington

County.

     Appellant   has   also   been   arrested   for   criminal   activity

related to domestic violence.            He was charged with criminal

trespass onto the property of an alleged domestic violence victim

who had an active restraining order against him at the time.             He

was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon in North Carolina.

From 1989 to 1993, he was arrested and charged with assault and

criminal contempt.

     Chief Jantas denied appellant's application on January 9,

2015.     The Chief found issuance of a permit to appellant to

purchase a firearm "would not be in the interest of the public

health, safety, and welfare."        
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).     This was

the second time Chief Jantas had denied appellant's application

to purchase a handgun for these same reasons.           The trial judge

reviewed the evidence made available to Chief Jantas de novo, and

reached the same conclusion.

     We are bound to uphold the Law Division's factual findings,

provided they are supported by sufficient competent evidence in

the record.    Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65

                                     5                            A-4916-14T
4 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).      However, the trial court's conclusions of

law, by contrast, are "not entitled to . . . special deference"

and are thus subject to de novo review.            In re Custodian of

Records, Criminal Div. Manager, 
214 N.J. 147, 163 (2013) (emphasis

added) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of

Manalapan, 
140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

     We discern no legal or factual basis to disagree with the

trial court's decision.      The record amply supports the court's

conclusion finding appellant disqualified from obtaining a permit

to purchase three handguns pursuant to the "public health, safety

or welfare" disqualifier under 
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).                In re

State for Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification

Card belonging to F.M., 
225 N.J. 487, 507-08 (2016).               As our

colleague Judge Kennedy noted in In re Z.L., 
440 N.J. Super. 351,

357 (App. Div. 2015), "in deciding the defendant [in State v.

Cordoma,   
372 N.J.    Super.   524,   536   (App.    Div.   2004)]   was

disqualified     under   subsection      (c)(5),   we    considered     the

defendant's mental condition, even though it did not rise to the

level of the disabling conditions set forth in 
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

3(c)(2) and (3)."

     Appellant's arguments based on the consideration of hearsay

evidence lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion.   R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).        It is well-established that the

                                    6                              A-4916-14T4
usual rules barring hearsay testimony are not controlling in

handgun permit proceedings.        Weston v. State, 
60 N.J. 36, 50

(1972).   Finally,   the   trial    court's   decision   to   order   the

forfeiture of appellant's firearms was entirely proper and in

keeping with the court's responsibility to protect victims of

domestic violence.   In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 
149 N.J.
 108, 114-16 (1997); see also 
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18.

    Affirmed.




                                   7                             A-4916-14T4