In re C.P.

1

IN RE: C.P. APPEAL OF: C.P.

No. 1065 MDA 2023

No. J-S19021-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 15, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered June 29, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 2022 10774

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

BECK J.

C.P appeals from the order entered by the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas ("trial court") denying her petition to restore her firearm rights pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(f)(1).^[1] On appeal, C.P. challenges the trial court's exercise of its discretion, alleging that its judgment relied upon a multitude of factual findings that were not supported by the record. After careful review, we affirm.

In April 2008, C.P.'s sister, concerned for C.P.'s well-being because of her use of marijuana and Vicodin, called the police for a welfare check. C.P.'s sister completed an application for involuntary emergency examination and treatment pursuant to section 302 of the MHPA ("302 petition"), averring that C.P. was severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment:

My sister told me today within the last hour that she did not want to be here on earth alive. On Monday, she confessed to me that she attempted suicide by taking a bottle of Xanax to kill herself and crashed her car. The paramedics found her unconscious in her car. She has told me that she has been under treatment for depression and anxiety and may have stopped treatment due to loss of job.

302 Petition, 4/24/2008. The application also noted that C.P. was a clear and present danger to herself and others because she had attempted suicide, and there was reasonable probability of suicide unless adequate treatment is afforded under the MHPA. Id.

As a result, the police found C.P. and asked her to accompany them to a hospital in Hazelton, Pennsylvania for an evaluation. She voluntarily complied. A psychologist evaluated C.P. and recommended inpatient treatment. C.P. initially refused inpatient treatment out of concern for her firearm rights but eventually agreed to it. She was transferred to Geisinger Bloomsburg Hospital ("Bloomsburg"), where she accepted treatment. She remained hospitalized for three days and two nights. The hospitalization was deemed to have been a section 302 commitment; consequently, C.P. was restricted from owning a firearm.^[2]

After she was discharged from the hospital, she received treatment from Dr. Joel Cahn for eight years before seeking an abuse and addiction specialist, Dr. John P. Seasock, Psy.D., LPC, for weekly treatment, among other programs. In 2016, Dr. Seasock determined C.P. to have a substance use disorder. Since then, however, C.P. has been confirmed sober through tests and voluntary completion of consistent treatment. Furthermore, Dr. Seasock determined that her substance abuse is in remission. In October 2022, Dr. John A. Reinhardt, Ph.D., administered an MMPI-2^[3] to C.P. Dr. Reinhardt noted that the test did not provide any results suggestive of a personality disorder or mental health issues, and did not reflect suicidal ideation, self-harm, or harm to others.

On November 29, 2022, C.P. filed a petition for restoration of her firearm rights. On February 8, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on C.P.'s petition at which C.P. and Dr. Seasock testified. C.P. testified that she was using Vicodin and marijuana at the time of her commitment, and further testified to her treatment until the date she filed the petition. N.T., 2/8/2023, at 25-27, 31. She further testified that she signed a form to voluntarily commit herself at Bloomsburg because she did not want to lose her firearms rights. Id. at 26. In response to the question of whether she attempted suicide, C.P. stated, "I don't know if I would - I could say like, yeah, I wanted to die[,] but definitely the drug use contributed to a very bad mental state." Id. at 33; see also id. (admitting that her sister filed the 302 petition because she "was using a lot of drugs at the time and I actually crashed my car"). C.P. additionally testified to an arrest in November 2016 involving the possession of drugs. Id. at 29.^[4]C.P. noted that police, performing a wellness check on people living with her, searched the entire residence and found marijuana and cocaine in her bedroom. Id. at 30. C.P. stated that the charges were dismissed and expunged after she successfully completed treatment court. Id. C.P. further noted that she was diagnosed with depression and anxiety while in college for which she has sought therapy and takes prescribed anti-depression and anti-anxiety medication. Id. at 34. C.P. indicated she also takes a nerve medication for a current injury. Id.

C.P. testified that she discovered that she had an involuntary commitment on her record a few years after 2008, when she "went to the store to purchase a shotgun for turkey hunting and [] was denied." Id. at 28. C.P. stated that she wants her firearms restored because she grew up hunting with her father, spent a lot of time alone in the woods, requesting her rights be restored "for safety reasons as a result of hunting." Id. at 32.

Dr. Seasock testified as an expert in the field of psychology. Id. at 12. Dr. Seasock evaluated C.P. for the return of firearms and evaluated her with the same format as a person seeking employment as a state trooper. Id. Dr. Seasock indicated that under the Traumatic Symptom Checklist, C.P. did not have indications of post-traumatic stress disorder and that she would be able to perform under high pressure situations in the absence of substance abuse. Id. at 17-18. Dr. Seasock noted that C.P. had difficulty with substance abuse and opined that she had not used any illegal substances since December 2016. Id. at 13; see also id. at 14 (noting she had to submit to regular drug and alcohol testing after her 2016 arrest and her employer required urine testing). Dr. Seasock additionally stated that "drugs and alcohol were the reason for the 302 going forward. Since living a sober and clean lifestyle, all the behavior; cognition, emotional, they disappeared. They're all substance abuse related." N.T., 2/8/2023, at 22. Further, he stated that "[m]aintaining abstinence from all mood-altering substances" was imperative for her to stay in control of the drug and alcohol issues. Id.

When asked if he reviewed the 302 petition, Dr. Seasock testified:

It was provided to me just before walking into the courtroom and it's consistent with what [C.P.] explained in the past. However, the 201 which is typical - typical. The 302 is exactly what she stated, so it[']s consistent. There is no inconsistency there. Typically[,] after a person is 302[']d, they're offered a 201 procedure which they basically say, yes, I need help psychiatrically. Gotta stay in the hospital. That piece was not provided. [C.P.] has stated that she did change the 302 to a 201 procedure which again is actually most common for me over the years.

Id. at 18. He continued in his testimony, "[s]he grew up hunting in the family. And that's actually one of the reasons she wants to restore the rights." Id. at 21; but see Dr. Seasock Report, at 1 (unnumbered) (indicating that C.P. wanted her gun rights restored because "it was suggested for her own safety that she may wish to pursue a concealed carry permit or firearm ownership due to local incidents of assault on women"). Dr. Seasock concluded, within "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty", that C.P.'s firearm rights should be restored, "[b]ased upon the psychological evaluation and the standardized tests that we utilized". N.T., 2/8/2023, at 14-15.

On June 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order denying her petition. C.P. timely appealed and filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). She presents the following issue for our review: "Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying C.P.'s petition for restoration of her firearm rights pursuant to section 6105(f)(1) when it repeatedly misapprehended the record and reached erroneous conclusions?" C.P.'s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Pursuant to section 6105(f)(1), the trial court has broad discretion to "grant such relief as it deems appropriate if the court determines that the applicant may possess a firearm without risk to the applicant or any other person." 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(f)(1). We therefore review a decision on a petition to restore firearm rights for an abuse of discretion. E.G.G. v. Pa. State Police, 219 A.3d 679, 683 (Pa. Super. 2019) "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment" but "occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record." E.G.G., 219 A.3d at 683 (citation omitted). Further, "[i]t is well-settled that a finder of fact is free to believe all, part[,] or none of a witness' testimony." In re E.H., 233 A.3d 820, 823 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation and brackets omitted).

In rejecting C.P.'s petition, the trial court found, in pertinent part, as follows:

In the case at bar, C.P. was hospitalized after a call from her sister to local law enforcement regarding her drug use suicidal threats and possible overdose. Upon arrival at the hospital, it was determined that C.P. required emergency treatment pursuant to the statute….

The 302 application submitted noted a clear and present danger to others and noted that she attempted suicide and there was a reasonable probability of suicide unless adequate treatment is afforded under the act….

During the hearing, C.P. did not testify in detail about the averments in the 302 petition. The

...