STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE MATTER OF COREY BAKER(MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: June 12, 2017
• Docket: A-3912-15T2
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3912-15T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE MATTER OF COREY BAKER

______________________________

Submitted May 10, 2017 – Decided June 12, 2017

Before Judges Lihotz and Whipple.

On appeal from State of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County.

Law Offices of Jef Henninger, attorney for appellant Corey Baker (Mr. Henninger, on the brief).

Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Jason Boudwin, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Corey Baker appeals from a March 23, 2016 order denying his

permit to carry a handgun. The appeal is dismissed.

In September 2015, Baker filed an application with the

Hamilton Barracks of the New Jersey State Police for a permit to

carry a handgun, and a State Police investigator approved his application. In accordance with firearm licensing instructions

for first time applicants, Baker completed and submitted certain

documents. As part of his application, Baker included a consent

to search New Jersey mental health records, a form indicating

completion of a gun safety course by certified instructor, and a

letter from his employer, stating "[c]arrying a firearm is

essential to the performance of his/her job and the security of

the operation."

Baker had lived in North Carolina for some time between 2011

and 2012. He signed waivers to provide mental health records from

North Carolina. He presented a letter, dated April 2012, from

East Carolina Behavioral Health. The letter provided there were

no records for applicant within their "ten-county catchment area."

The letter went on to explain,

We do not have records of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources or any other state, federal, or private mental or substance abuse institution. Furthermore, in order for you to be informed as to whether the applicant has ever been "adjudicated or administratively determined to be, lacking mental capacity, or mentally ill" (N.C.G.S. 14-415.12(H)(6)[)], the applicant should present to you such certification from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

On March 23, 2016, the application was presented to a Superior

Court judge pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, who entered an order

denying the permit without prejudice. Because the letter was from

2 A-3912-15T2 2012, three years prior to the permit application, the judge

determined the information was stale. The judge also found the

information was not adequate. He explained the applicant was

required to get a certification from the clerk of the Superior

Court in North Carolina.

Thus, the judge denied the application without prejudice,

encouraging Baker to obtain the certification, at which point he

would rehear the matter. Rather than provide the court with the

appropriate certification, Baker appealed.

Rule 2:2-3(a)(1) provides appeals as of right may only be

taken from a final judgment of the trial court. The court's order

must dispose of all claims of all parties. In Janicky v. Point

Bay Fuel, Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 545, 550 (App. Div. 2007), we

stated,

If an order is not a final judgment, a party must be granted leave to appeal by the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-4; R. 2:5-6(a). In recognition of the fact that "[i]nterlocutory appellate review runs counter to a judicial policy that favors an 'uninterrupted proceeding at the trial level with a single and complete review[,]'" our appellate courts exercise their authority to grant leave to appeal "only sparingly." State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 (1985) (quoting In re Pa. R.R., 20 N.J. 398, 404 (1956)).

Baker's petition was denied, but he still had a viable course of

action because the trial court was still in a position to entertain

3 A-3912-15T2 jurisdiction. The judge denied the application without prejudice,

so Baker may still obtain the proper documentation and refile for

a permit to carry a firearm. That being so, plaintiff was obliged

to seek leave of this court for interlocutory review. R. 2:2-

3(b). He failed to do so.

Dismissed.

4 A-3912-15T2