01-2-8841 In the Matter of Denial of Application for Permit to Carry Handgun of Short, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Plaintiff, who was previously granted permission to purchase a handgun and who possessed the handgun in his home, appealed the denial by the police chief and the trial court of his application for a permit to carry a firearm on the basis that he had demonstrated no “justifiable need” as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d). They found that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5 and N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 did not prohibit him from possessing his validly purchased handgun in his home. Accordingly, it concluded that his argument that he had to obtain a permit to carry or he would presumptively violate N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) was without merit.
01-2-8842 Feagins v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Malachi Feagins, a prison inmate serving a life sentence, appealed a final decision, in which the Department of Corrections concluded he committed prohibited act *.803/*.704, attempting to perpetuate frauds, deceptions, confidence games, riots or escape plots. This disciplinary matter arose from the Special Investigation Division’s investigation into a conspiracy to obtain contraband, such as drugs and cellphones, through compromised prison staff. As part of its investigation, SID learned that Feagins received three money orders that were deposited into his inmate trust account. Believing this to be part of the alleged conspiracy, the department instituted disciplinary charges against Feagins. At the hearing, Feagins pleaded not guilty and was permitted counsel-substitute. Feagins declined to make a statement and chose not to request the gathering of statements from witnesses or confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. His counsel-substitute claimed due process violations, argued the absence of a prohibition on an inmate receiving money from a family member and sought leniency. The appellate panel remanded for further findings, concluding that the minimal due process safeguards applicable in prison disciplinary matters required greater specificity than provided here. The hearing officer inadequately described the confidential information upon which she relied in making her decision.
