J-A14045-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: T.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.W.
No. 1979 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered October 16, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No.: 2015-SU-002707-64
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED AUGUST 03, 2016
Appellant, T.W., appeals from the trial court’s October 16, 20151 order
denying his petition for expunction of the record of his involuntary mental
health commitment. Specifically, he contends that the trial court had the
discretion to expunge the record, which would remove the firearm
possession restriction imposed under state and federal law, and erred in
denying his petition. We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned trial court
opinion.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Although the trial court’s order was dated October 15, 2015, it was entered
on the docket on October 16, 2015. We have amended the caption
accordingly.
J-A14045-16
In its January 19, 2016 opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets
forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court
Opinion, 1/19/16, at 1-6). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them
here.
For clarity and the convenience of the reader, we note briefly that
Appellant was involuntarily committed to a mental health institution on
March 22, 2006, under 50 P.S. § 7302 (section 302). Appellant’s
commitment occurred following an involuntary committal hearing, during
which the court found that after responding to his call for help, co-workers
found Appellant sitting in his kitchen looking at family photos with his gun
beside him and drinking Jack Daniels whiskey. Appellant admitted at the
hearing that he contemplated utilizing the gun and that he had several
thoughts running through his head. Appellant was released from the mental
health institution on March 24, 2006.
On August 12, 2015, Appellant filed a petition to expunge the record of
his section 302 involuntary commitment. Appellant sought expunction under
section 6111.1(g)(2) of the Uniform Firearms Act arguing that the evidence
presented at the involuntary commitment hearing was insufficient to justify
his commitment.2 Alternatively, he sought expunction under section 6105 of
____________________________________________
2
Section 6111.1(g)(2) provides a means for expungement of records of
section 302 involuntary commitment where the evidence was insufficient to
justify such commitment. In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court held Act 192 of 2014, which altered parts of section 6111.1,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-A14045-16
the Uniform Firearms Act arguing that he was entitled to expungement
because he could possess a firearm without risk. The court held a de novo
hearing on Appellant’s petition on September 16, 2015. On October 16,
2015, the trial court entered its order denying his petition for expunction.
However, in that order, the court relieved Appellant of the firearms disability
imposed by the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act.3 This timely appeal
followed.4
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
A. Whether the court of common pleas has broad statutory
powers to grant relief including expungement of [Appellant’s]
302 commitment under 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6105(f)(1) and
[Appellant] is entitled to expungement of his prior commitment
under the Uniform Firearms Act because he poses no risk to
himself or any other person if he were to have a firearm[?]
B. Whether the evidence and testimony presented at the review
hearing failed to meet the statutory requirements for involuntary
commitment under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
unconstitutional as having been enacted in violation of the single subject
requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. 3, § 3. See Leach v.
Commonwealth, 2016 WL 3388388, at *7 (Pa. June 20, 2016).
3
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c)(4) (prohibiting persons involuntarily
committed under section 302 from possessing, using, controlling, selling,
transferring or manufacturing a firearm). The court noted that it could not
remove the firearms disability imposed by federal law under 18 U.S.C.A. §
922(g)(4) (prohibiting persons who have been committed to a mental
institution from possessing any firearm or ammunition).
4
Pursuant to the trial court’s order, Appellant filed his timely statement of
errors complained of on appeal on December 3, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). The trial court entered its opinion on January 19, 2016. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
-3-
J-A14045-16
Act and [Appellant] is therefore entitled to expungement under
section 6111.1 of the Uniform Firearms Act[?]
(Appellant’s Brief, at 3) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant claims that the court had the authority
under section 6105(f)(1) of the Uniform Firearms Act to expunge the record
of his section 302 mental health involuntary commitment, and it abused its
discretion by not granting his request. In his second issue, Appellant argues
that the evidence presented at the involuntary commitment hearing was
insufficient to meet the requirements for commitment under section 302
because the evidence did not demonstrate that he posed a clear and present
danger to himself or others. Therefore, he claims he is entitled to
expungement of the record under section 6111.1(g)(2) of the Uniform
Firearms Act. We disagree.
“Our well-settled standard of review in cases involving a motion for
expunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” In re Keyes, 83
A.3d 1016, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 104 (Pa. 2014)
(citation omitted). “However, [q]uestions of evidentiary sufficiency present
questions of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of
review is plenary. In conducting sufficiency review, we must consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the [party that] prevailed upon the
issue at trial.” In re Vencil, 120 A.3d 1028, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2015),
appeal granted in part, 128 A.3d 1183 (Pa. 2015) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
-4-
J-A14045-16
This Court has determined that “a de novo hearing by the trial court is
required for [s]ection 6111.1(g)(2) reviews[.]” Vencil, supra at 1035. At
the de novo hearing, the trial court is required to apply a clear and
convincing evidence standard. See id. at 1036. “Clear and convincing
evidence is the highest burden in our civil law and requires that the fact-
finder be able to come to clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of
the precise fact in issue.” Id. at 1037 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Under controlling precedent “[s]ubsection 6105(f)(1) is intended solely
for the restoration of the right to possess firearms, not for the expunction of
a record of involuntary commitment under the [Mental Health Procedures
Act].” Keyes, supra at 1022 (holding that section 6105(f)(1) of Uniform
Firearms Act does not imbue trial court with authority to expunge record of
section 302 involuntary commitments).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude
that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial
court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Ct.
Op., at 14, 16-17 (concluding: (1) section 6105(f)(1) of Uniform Firearms
Act does not grant court authority to expunge record of mental health act
involuntary commitment; moreover, trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Appellant’s motion for expunction; (2) clear and convincing
testimony and evidence was presented at de novo section 6111.1 sufficiency
-5-
J-A14045-16
review hearing to demonstrate that involuntary commitment under section
302 was proper because Appellant had suicidal thoughts and was clear and
present danger to himself.)); Keyes, supra at 1022; Vencil, supra at
1035-37. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/3/2016
-6-
Circulated 07/20/2016 10:58 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CML DIVISION
INRE: (_
c
._Wi .....
~.
No. 2015-SU-002707-64 o
T __ -