In the Matter of Freddie B. Frazier, Department of Corrections

86 A.3d 150, 435 N.J. Super. 1, 2014 WL 982391, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 31

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 14, 2014
• Docket: A-3099-11
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3099-11T3

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE MATTER OF FREDDIE B. March 14, 2014 FRAZIER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. APPELLATE DIVISION ________________________________

Argued Telephonically January 24, 2014 – Decided March 14, 2014

Before Judges Fisher,1 Koblitz and O'Connor.

On appeal from the Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2011-4777.

Mario A. Iavicoli argued the cause for appellant Freddie B. Frazier.

Donna S. Arons, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Civil Service Commission (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, and Ms. Arons, of counsel; Nicole P. Colon, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

KOBLITZ, J.A.D.

Freddie B. Frazier appeals from a January 11, 2012 final

decision of the Civil Service Commission that removed him from

his position as a Senior Correction Officer because, having been

1 Judge Fisher did not participate in oral argument. He joins the opinion with counsel's consent. R. 2:13-2(b). convicted in 2000 of a disorderly persons offense involving

domestic violence, he was statutorily prohibited from possessing

or carrying a firearm, which is a requirement of his position.

We affirm.

This is the thirteenth year of litigation, and third

appeal, in this matter. Frazier was arrested in 1999. Although

indicted for much more serious crimes2, he eventually pleaded

guilty to simple assault by physical menace, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-

1(a)(3). The Department of Corrections (DOC) initially served

Frazier with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (PNDA)

in 2001 based on the Lautenberg Amendment to the federal Gun

Control Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(9), which provides that any

person convicted of a qualifying domestic violence offense is

prohibited pursuant to federal law from possessing a firearm.

Frazier was removed from his position, lost his administrative

appeals and appealed to us.

Although noting that the "police report of the incident

that resulted in the charges . . . shows appellant repeatedly

struck his girlfriend with a closed fist and reached for his gun

during the assault," we reversed the determination of the Civil

Service Commission to remove him from his position because the

2 He was indicted for third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3 and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a).

2 A-3099-11T3 simple assault provision to which Frazier pleaded guilty did not

have "'as an element, the use or attempted use of physical

force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon[]' 18 U.S.C.A. §

921(a)(33)(A) . . . ." In re Frazier, 392 N.J. Super. 514, 520

(App. Div. 2007). In the opinion we noted that Frazier

acknowledged the incident was one of domestic violence. We

stated that

the victim, appellant's live-in girlfriend, is conceded to have been a cohabitant who was "similarly situated to a spouse." Consequently, the only issue is whether appellant's conviction satisfied the second criterion of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 [the administrative regulation implementing the Lautenberg Amendment], that is, whether he was convicted of an offense that has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., assault and battery), or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.

[Id. at 518-19 (internal quotation marks omitted).]

Although reversing his removal, we remanded because his

conviction might warrant other disciplinary action. Id. at 520.

The DOC then amended its PNDA, claiming Frazier was

disqualified from possessing a firearm under the New Jersey

analog to the Lautenberg Amendment, the 2004 amendment to

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(2), and the Civil Service Commission agreed,

finding that he was prohibited under State law from carrying a

firearm. We again reversed, determining that the last-minute

3 A-3099-11T3 addition of the New Jersey law to the PNDA was procedurally

improper. After the second reversal, the DOC served a new PNDA

on Frazier, again alleging that he could not perform his job

because the 2004 New Jersey law prohibited him from possessing

or using a firearm due to a disorderly persons conviction

involving domestic violence. It is this determination that we

now affirm.

Our role in reviewing a final administrative agency

decision is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999).

We must defer to a final agency decision unless it is arbitrary,

capricious, unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the

record, or in violation of the express or implicit legislative

policy. Id. at 656-57. We must determine whether an agency's

findings could have been "'reached on sufficient credible

evidence present in the record' considering 'the proofs as a

whole,' with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard

the witnesses to judge of their credibility." Id. at 656

(quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)). If

we find sufficient credible evidence in the record to support

the agency's conclusions, then we must affirm even if we would

have reached a different result. Clowes v. Terminix Int'l,

Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 588 (1981). Despite high deference, we must

set aside a decision if an independent review of the record

4 A-3099-11T3 satisfies us that the finding was clearly mistaken or erroneous,

L.M. v. Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Servs., 140 N.J. 480, 490

(1995).

I

Frazier argues that this most recent PNDA is barred by res

judicata, collateral estoppel and the entire controversy

doctrine. He also claims that the PNDA seeks to illegally

impose an ex post facto penalty and also fails because the

statute has an exemption for law enforcement officers while on

duty. None of the issues raised by Frazier was raised in the

administrative proceedings. Our Supreme Court has stated that

appellate courts "will decline to consider questions or issues

not properly presented to the trial [forum] when an opportunity

for such a presentation is available 'unless the questions so

raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial [forum] or

concern matters of great public interest.'" Nieder v. Royal

Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (internal citations

omitted). Although raised on appeal for the first time, given

the complicated procedural history and significant ramifications

for Frazier and others, we will address these issues in the

interest of justice.

Frazier claims that our 2011 decision gave finality to his

claim that the DOC could not remove him based on N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

5 A-3099-11T3 7(b)(2), asserting we determined in that opinion that the

evidence presented failed to establish his conviction involved

domestic violence. Although he raised that argument in his

second appeal, we reversed based on a procedural defect. We

stated that Frazier was "arrested as a result of an incident

involving his girlfriend" and declined to address whether

Frazier's conviction was one involving domestic violence. The

principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata do not assist

Frazier because neither we, nor any other court or agency,

determined his conviction did not involve domestic violence. To

the contrary, in his first appeal Frazier conceded the incident

involved his "live-in girlfriend." Frazier, supra, 392 N.J.

Super. at 518. Having conceded that fact in 2007 in this same

litigation, he cannot now raise the issue as unproven.

II

Frazier also argues that applying the 2004 amendment to a

1999 conviction violates the United States and New Jersey

constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. U.S.

Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 3; U.S. Const. art. 1 § 10, cl. 1; N.J.

Const. art. IV, § 7, P 3; see Doe v. Portiz, 142 N.J. 1, 42-43

n.10 (1995) (explaining that New Jersey interprets its ex post

facto clause consistent with federal law). For a criminal law

to be ex post facto, it must: (1) be "retrospective" in

6 A-3099-11T3 applying to events occurring before its enactment and (2)

disadvantage "the offender affected by it." State v. Natale,

184 N.J. 458, 491 (2005) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(2), the applicable part of the

"Certain Persons Not to Have Weapons" statute, states that a

person "having been convicted" of a "disorderly persons offense

involving domestic violence, whether armed or not armed . . .

who purchases, owns, possesses or controls a firearm is guilty

of a crime of the third degree."

The Eighth Circuit decided a similar ex post facto

challenge to the Lautenberg Amendment. In United States v.

Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436 (8th Cir. 2004), the court held that

the Lautenberg Amendment's prohibition on gun ownership and

possession was not applied ex post facto to a defendant in

possession of a gun who had been convicted of a domestic

violence misdemeanor prior to the passage of the amendment. The

defendant was convicted of violating a South Dakota statute for

attempting to "cause bodily injury" to his wife seventeen years

before the Lautenberg Amendment's passage for using and

possessing a firearm. Id. at 433-36. The court, relying on

precedent from other federal circuits, held that the law is "not

retroactive simply because it 'draws upon antecedent facts for

its operation.'" Id. at 436. The reasoning in Pfeifer

7 A-3099-11T3 upholding the defendant's conviction applies here as well.

Frazier's disqualification because he is unable to legally use a

firearm does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the state

or federal constitution.

III

Frazier claims also that the DOC's fragmented litigation

based on the "same identical, exact core facts" serves to bar

the current proceeding. The entire controversy doctrine is

codified in Rule 4:30A, which provides the "nonjoinder of claims

required to be joined by the entire controversy doctrine shall

result in the preclusion of the omitted claims . . . ." Our

Supreme Court recognizes that the doctrine "encompasses a

mandatory rule for the joinder of virtually all causes, claims

and defenses related to a controversy between the parties

engaged in litigation." Cogdell v. Hospital Ctr., 116 N.J. 7,

16 (1989). In determining whether a prior claim or a successive

claim constitutes a controversy such that the successive claim

should be barred, "the central consideration is whether the

claims against the different parties arise from related facts or

the same transaction or series of transactions." DiTrolio v.

Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 267 (1995).

While the doctrine is broad, its "boundaries . . . are not

limitless." Mystic Isle Dev. Corp. v. Perskie & Nehmad, 142

8 A-3099-11T3 N.J. 310, 323 (1995). The Court explained that the entire

controversy doctrine does not bar "component claims that are

unknown, unarisen, or unaccrued at the time of the original

action." Ibid. Frazier's disqualification under New Jersey law

from possessing a firearm did not arise until 2004 when N.J.S.A.

2C:39-7(b)(2) took effect. The DOC could not have joined this

claim in its first 2001 PNDA because the New Jersey amendment

did not yet exist. When the DOC attempted to amend the 2001

PNDA to include N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(2) as a reason for his

removal in 2008, we held that such a modification was

procedurally deficient because proper notice had not been given

to Frazier. Although the DOC could have filed a new PNDA based

on State law sooner, the delay in amending the PNDA does not

constitute a violation of the entire controversy doctrine in

these circumstances. As the Attorney General notes, for reasons

of safety, a corrections officer must be able to legally possess

a firearm to adequately perform his duties. Neither this

requirement nor enforcement of the 2004 criminal statute can be

waived by the DOC.

IV

Frazier argues in his final substantive argument that

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(2) contains an exemption codified in

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(3), which reads in pertinent part:

9 A-3099-11T3 A person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the "Prevention of the Domestic Violence Act of 1991," . . . (2C:25-17 et seq.) . . . who purchases, owns, possesses or controls a firearm is guilty of a crime of the third degree, except that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to law enforcement officers while actually on duty . . .

[(Emphasis added).]

This provision does not apply to Frazier as he did not have a

firearm seized pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act. See

2C:25-21(d). The Legislature did not exempt law enforcement

officers from the provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(2) that

prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone with a criminal

conviction for a domestic violence offense. We must interpret

statutes as they are written. Hardy ex re. Dowdell v. Abdul-

Matin, 198 N.J. 95, 101 (2009) (stating that "the best

indicators" of Legislative intent are the "plain words of the

statute").

We recognize that the DOC should have litigated this matter

more efficiently so that Frazier did not have to endure many

years of litigation. We also understand that Frazier may well

not have pleaded guilty in 1999 had he known the guilty plea

would cost him his job years later. However, when enacting the

2004 amendment, the Legislature chose to expand the statute to

prohibit possession of a firearm by any person, without

exception, who was convicted at any time of a disorderly persons

10 A-3099-11T3 offense involving domestic violence. Our decision gives force

to that intent.

Affirmed.

11 A-3099-11T3