IN RE THE APPLICATION OF JOSEPH D. DELVECCHIO FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0622-21

IN RE THE APPLICATION
OF JOSEPH D. DELVECCHIO
FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY
A HANDGUN
___________________________

                Submitted March 29, 2022 – Decided April 12, 2022

                Before Judges Fisher and Smith.

                On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                Division, Bergen County, Docket No. GP-0056-21.

                Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
                appellant State of New Jersey (William P. Miller,
                Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief;
                Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, on the brief).

                Joseph D. Delvecchio, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

       In June 2021, Joseph Delvecchio applied for a permit to carry a handgun

under  N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d); the application included his employer's certification

that the applicant would be engaged in security and the handgun was a necessary
aspect of the job. The police chief approved the request, but the prosecutor's

office objected.

      On August 24, 2021, the trial judge heard the prosecutor's argument and

the applicant's testimony at a brief hearing. The prosecutor noted the lack of

information from the county adjuster and that a justifiable need for the permit

had not been shown. Applicant's responsive testimony revealed a lack of clarity

about his need to carry a handgun:

            [THE COURT]: What assets or merchandise does the
            security company maintain?

            A. . . . I personally don't have that answer for you, Your
            Honor. I was told to apply for a (indiscernible) permit
            and I was going to get a job with USPA [Nationwide
            Security of NJ], you know, doing security at certain
            locations, that being armed guards. So I . . . obtained
            the armed guard SORA license . . . and . . . my direct
            supervisor told me that the hire would depend[] on the
            permit to carry.

            [THE COURT]: . . . I assume (indiscernible) but the
            letter of need, the certificate of need, essentially sets
            forth that the need is for you to provide armed security
            for the security company to protect assets of the
            security company, being cash and merchandise, and it
            . . . doesn't elaborate on what that may be. . . . [T]he
            letter is very bare in its information.

            A. But the – the letter of need sets (indiscernible)
            providing security to each outlet, which is an outside
            business, not for USPA [N]ationwide. . . . But I would


                                                                         A-0622-21
                                        2
             be employed by USPA and I would be provid[ing]
             security for HLA [Warehouse].

                   ....

             [THE COURT]: All right. What's . . . HLA Warehouse?

             A. From what I understand the, you know, my employer
             told me that it's HLA [G]lass (indiscernible). You
             know, they store – they store contents. I – I don't even
             know.

        After the judge heard this testimony, he initially expressed his

"inclin[ation] to grant this on a limited basis only within the scope of your

employment within the specific hours that you work . . . ." The judge noted that

the "mental health records check hasn't come back yet," which was another

"problem with [the] application." And the judge expressed a need for the

employer to provide a more detailed letter about the scope of employment. As a

result, no decision was then made; the matter was instead adjourned for thirty

days.

        It appears that no further hearing occurred. Instead, on September 24,

2021, the judge entered an order that granted the application with limitations

and provided a notation that its entry was based on the reasons given at the

August 24, 2021 hearing.




                                                                          A-0622-21
                                        3
      The State appeals, arguing that the trial judge erroneously entered the

order because the applicant failed to show he had a justifiable need for the

permit.

      We note that during the August 24, 2021 hearing, the judge suggested the

application would be approved if uncertainties were cleared up. At that time, as

we have already observed, there were questions about that the existence of any

mental health records and the scope of applicant's employment. So, the judge's

reference to the reasons he gave on August 24, 2021, in entering the September

24, 2021 order does not provide us with a sufficient understanding about why

the order was entered. We note that the record on appeal contains what appears

to be a certification from the county adjuster that there were no mental health

records on file that concerned the applicant. But the judge's questions during the

August hearing about the nature of applicant's employment appear not to have

been answered. If answers were provided, they cannot be found in the record on

appeal. To adequately review the proceedings and determine whether there is

merit to the State's appeal, the court requires a further explanation about the

nature of the applicant's employment.




                                                                            A-0622-21
                                        4
      The order under review is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial

court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We do not retain

jurisdiction.




                                                                         A-0622-21
                                      5