In re M.P.B.

1

IN RE: M.P.B. Appellant

No. 762 MDA 2023

No. J-S03001-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 5, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered April 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Civil Division at No(s) 2022-MV-0000057-RE

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

OLSON J.

Appellant M.P.B., appeals from the April 25, 2023 order denying his petition to expunge the record of his involuntary mental health commitment pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7302 and to restore his right to possess a firearm pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1). We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

[On February 8, 2020,] . . . an incident occurred between [Appellant] and his wife during which she called the [Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP")]. When the PSP arrived, [Appellant] admitted that he possessed a loaded handgun and brandished it, seeking "suicide by cop." The situation de-escalated and [Appellant] was taken to Geisinger-Bloomsburg Hospital (GBH) after [Appellant's] wife applied for an involuntary commitment. It was stipulated that [Appellant] arrived at GBH at 2:00 a.m.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/25/23, at 1.

Appellant's "process of examination began at 2:24 a.m. with an evaluation of [his] pain level." Id. at 2. Appellant was evaluated again at 3:37 a.m. by Dr. Amy Marlinda Taylor who noted that Appellant's blood alcohol content ("BAC") was measured at 0.225% and opined that a "psych[iatric] assessment" could not be completed until approximately 10:00 a.m. because Appellant "was too intoxicated to [be] properly examine[d] or assess[ed]." Id. At 12:30 p.m., Dr. Michael Starr evaluated Appellant and determined that he needed inpatient psychiatric admission treatment. Id. Accordingly, Appellant was involuntarily committed to GBH and subsequently released after 72 hours.

On December 27, 2022, Appellant filed a petition seeking expungement of his record of involuntary commitment and restoration of his firearms rights. In his petition, Appellant claimed that the physicians at GBH failed to "examine [him] and certify his commitment within two hours after his arrival at GBH" and, as such, violated his "due process rights under [50 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302(b)]."^[1] Appellant's Petition, 12/27/22, at 3. Based upon the foregoing, Appellant asked the trial court to vacate his involuntary commitment and expunge the records of his confinement under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g)(2).^[2] Appellant also asked the trial court to grant relief pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1) (permitting an applicant prohibited from possessing a firearm under subsection (c)(4) to petition the court for relief).

The trial court held a hearing on Appellant's petition on April 25, 2023, as Appellant's petition was opposed by the PSP. At the hearing, Appellant's expert, Dr. Louis B. Laguna, testified. The trial court summarized Dr. Laguna's testimony as follows:

Dr. Laguna met with [Appellant] on June 10, 2020 and again on September 1, 2022. Dr. Laguna opined that the incident on February 10, 2020 (and a prior gun incident which occurred during another argument with [Appellant's] wife in 2015) occurred due to relationship problems with [Appellant's] wife, stressors at his business and alcohol abuse. All based on [Appellant's] self[-]reporting to Dr. Laguna on September 1, 2022, Dr. Laguna was of the opinion that all three [] of these stresses were diminished or are no longer present, and that [Appellant] can possess a firearm without risk or threat to himself or others. Dr. Laguna initially testified that [Appellant] is now abstaining from alcohol, that his marriage was on a good track and that [Appellant's] business is now running smoothly.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/25/23, at 2-3.

Thereafter, Appellant testified about, inter alia, changes in his life that occurred after his meeting with Dr. Laguna on September 1, 2022. First, Appellant stated that, a few months prior to the April 2023 hearing, his wife moved out of the marital home and they were deciding whether to proceed with a divorce or reconcile. Id. at 3. In addition, Appellant testified that, on one occasion in the fall of 2022, he "relapsed into alcohol consumption . . . [and] consumed four beers . . . when 'stressors' re-appeared" in his life. Id. Dr. Laguna was recalled after Appellant's testimony and testified that, regardless of the issues present in Appellant's relationship with his wife and his resumption of alcohol use, he still believed that Appellant could "possess a firearm without risk or threat to himself or others." Id. Ultimately, the trial court denied Appellant's request for expungement of his confinement records and restoration of his firearm rights. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law by concluding that the examination of Appellant [began] within two hours of Appellant's arrival, despite no evidence of inquiry into Appellant's mental health until well beyond the two-hour window?

2. [Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's request for relief pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1)?]

Appellant's Brief at 4.

In Appellant's first issue, he argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his initial intake assessment satisfied the two-hour examination requirement found in 50 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302(b). More specifically, Appellant alleges that the physicians at GBH failed to commence or, ultimately, to certify within two hours as required by 50 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302(b) that Appellant's commitment met the substantive admission criteria of Section 7301(a) of the Mental Health and Procedures Act (MHPA), 50 P.S. §§ 7101-7503. As such, Appellant maintains that his commitment violated his due process rights. Upon review, we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief.

Importantly,

[t]he Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 (UFA), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101- 6128, makes it unlawful for a person who has been involuntarily committed under Section 302 to "possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture" a firearm or to obtain a license to conduct any of those activities. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1), (c)(4). However, the UFA provides two ways for the subject of a 302 commitment to obtain relief from the Section 6105(a)(1) firearm restrictions. The one at issue in this case [involves a request for] a court-ordered expungement of the 302 commitment record under Section 6111.1(g)(2), which provides:

(g) Review by court.-

(2) A person who is involuntarily committed pursuant to section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act may petition the court to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the commitment was based. If the court determines that the evidence upon which the involuntary commitment was based was insufficient, the court shall order that the record of the commitment submitted to the Pennsylvania State Police be expunged. A petition filed under this subsection shall toll the 60-day period set forth under section 6105(a)(2).

18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2).

In re B.W., 250 A.3d 1163, 1165-1167 (Pa. 2021) (parallel citations and footnotes omitted).

In a recent decision, our Supreme Court "clarified" the "appropriate review" a trial court must give to a Section 6111.1(g)(2) petition. Id. at 1167, citing Vencil, supra. It stated:

The plain language of Section 6111.1(g)(2) requires a court of common pleas to review only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 302 commitment, limited to the information available to the physician at the time he or she made the decision to commit the individual, viewed in the light most favorable to the physician as the original decision-maker to determine whether his or her findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vencil, 152 A.3d at 237 (Pa. 2017) (emphasis added). A person "may be subjected to an involuntary examination by a physician" under Section 302 if there are "'reasonable grounds to believe' that he [] is 'severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment.'" Id., citing 50 P.S. § 7302(a). An individual is "severely mentally disabled" if "as a result of mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations or to care for his personal needs is so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger to others or himself." 50 P.S. § 7301(a); see also 50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1)-(2)(i)-(iii) (defining what constitutes a "clear and present danger").

Moreover, the Court further explained that

a Section 6111.1(g)(2) review is not a direct appeal from a 302 commitment and the interest at stake under 6111.1(g)(2) is not one's right to liberty. The infringement upon [a petitioner's] liberty occur[s] when [he or she] was involuntarily committed pursuant to [S]ection 302 of the MHPA. By the time a [S]ection 6111.1(g)(2) petition is filed, the liberty deprivation has ended. A sufficiency review pursuant to [S]ection 6111.1(g)(2) of the [UFA] is merely a mechanism to expunge the PSP's record of an individual's 302 commitment to remove this barrier to his or her possession and control of firearms.

Vencil, 152 A.3d at 245 (footnote omitted). Thus Pennsylvania courts, in interpreting the foregoing statement, have concluded that because "Section 6111.1(g)(2) merely allows a person who is precluded from possessing or owning firearms due to a prior involuntary mental health commitment to seek to expunge the record of that commitment," it does "not provide a basis to challenge the commitment itself." Gentis v. Commonwealth, 2021 WL 4704155 *1, *6 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2021) (non-precedential decision) (declining to consider the appellant's claim...