NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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