Unpublished Opinions for the Week of October 17, 2016

01-2-1524 In the Matter of Rickey R. Duncanson, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Suter, J.) (5 pp.) Rickey Duncanson appealed from the order that denied the renewal of his permit to carry a handgun. Duncanson was employed by an armored car service, and was issued a two-year limited permit to carry a handgun while in the performance of his employment, and while proceeding to and from work assignments. Although the state police approved the renewal of Duncanson’s license, a superior court judge revoked, sua sponte and without witnesses or notice to Duncanson, the renewal after learning that Duncanson’s expired license allegedly had been altered to appear to give Duncanson an unlimited right to carry a handgun. On appeal, Duncanson argued that the trial court erred in making determinations of fact at a hearing that he had no notice of, based purely on hearsay evidence. The court first noted that a handgun permit revocation required procedural due process, and because the state police had approved the renewal of Duncanson’s permit, the trial court’s “denial” was in fact a revocation. Accordingly, the court held that Duncanson was entitled to a hearing prior to revocation of his permit. Therefore, the court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing with adequate notice to Duncanson, to further develop the factual record regarding the alleged alteration of his prior permit.

01-2-1539 In the Matter of Rickey R. Duncanson, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Suter, J.) (5 pp.) Rickey Duncanson appealed from the order that denied the renewal of his permit to carry a handgun. Duncanson was employed by an armored car service and was issued a two-year limited permit to carry a handgun while in the performance of his employment, and while proceeding to and from work assignments. Although the state police approved the renewal of Duncanson’s license, a superior court judge revoked, sua sponte and without witnesses or notice to Duncanson, the renewal after learning that Duncanson’s expired license allegedly had been altered to appear to give Duncanson an unlimited right to carry a handgun. On appeal, Duncanson argued that the trial court erred in making determinations of fact at a hearing that he had no notice of, based purely on hearsay evidence. The court first noted that a handgun permit revocation required procedural due process, and because the state police had approved the renewal of Duncanson’s permit, the trial court’s “denial” was in fact a revocation. Accordingly, the court held that Duncanson was entitled to a hearing prior to revocation of his permit. Therefore, the court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing with adequate notice to Duncanson, to further develop the factual record regarding the alleged alteration of his prior permit.