J-A12026-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: K.L. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPELLANT No. 1592 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): 1110 of 2012 BEFORE: BENDER, J., GANTMAN, J., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED: June 21, 2013 Appellant, K.L., appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petition to expunge his mental health record of involuntary commitment so he could obtain a firearm. We affirm. The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Appellant raises three issues on appeal: WHERE MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION OR CHALLENGE TO ITS COMPETENCY, DOES THE COURT COMMIT ERROR WHERE IT FINDS SUCH EVIDENCE INCOMPETENT ONLY AFTER THE RECORD IS CLOSED? IN A MATTER FILED UNDER 18 PA.C.S. 6105(F)(1), FOR RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS, IS A DENIAL OF RESTORATION OF RIGHTS AND REFUSAL TO EXPUNGE AN INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH RECORD AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WHERE CREDIBLE AND SUFFICIENT RECORD EVIDENCE EXISTS OF [APPELLANT S] CONTINUING STABLE MENTAL HEALTH PROGNOSIS?
J-A12026-13 WHERE RECORD EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THE NON- NECESSITY OF A PRIOR TITLE 50 P.S. 7302 INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF PETITIONER, AND WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE OF HIS VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, DID THE COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED EXPUNGEMENT OF SUCH INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT RECORDS AND DENIED RESTORATION OF PETITIONER'S CIVIL RIGHTS? (Appellant s Brief at 6). Statutory interpretation is a question of law and, as such, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. J.C.B. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 35 A.3d 792, 794 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, Pa., 49 A.3d 444 (2012). Resolution of this appeal implicates review of several statutory provisions, including: 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms (a) Offense defined. (1) A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth. * * * (c) Other persons. In addition to any person who has been convicted of any offense listed under subsection (b), the following persons shall be subject to the prohibition of subsection (a): - 2 -
J-A12026-13 * * * (4) A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L. 817, No. 143), [50 P.S. 7302 to 7304] known as the Mental Health Procedures Act. This paragraph shall not apply to any proceeding under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act unless the examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable. * * * (f) Other exemptions and proceedings. (1) Upon application to the court of common pleas under this subsection by an applicant subject to the prohibitions under subsection (c)(4), the court may 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.A. 6105(a), (c)(4), (f)(1). Section 6111.1 of the Crimes Code provides, in relevant part, as follows: 6111.1. Pennsylvania State Police * * * (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 - 3 -
J-A12026-13 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). (3) The Pennsylvania State Police shall expunge all records of an involuntary commitment of an individual who is discharged from a mental health facility based upon the initial review by the physician occurring within two hours of arrival under section 302(b) of the Mental Health Procedures Act and the physician's determination that no severe mental disability existed pursuant to section 302(b) of the Mental Health Procedures Act. The physician shall provide signed confirmation of the determination of the lack of severe mental disability following the initial examination under section 302(b) of the Mental Health Procedures Act to the Pennsylvania State Police. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6111.1(g)(2)-(3). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John A. Zottola, we conclude Appellant s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 14, 2012, at 3-9) (addressing Appellant s issues together and finding: court needed sufficient credible evidence of prognosis of Appellant s prior, medically determined, severe mental disability to assess whether Appellant s future mental health condition will be sufficiently stable such that he will not experience future psychological break; Dr. Kant s opinion letters, issued after only two - 4 -
J-A12026-13 sessions with Appellant, were not enough to establish credible evidence of Appellant s soundness of mind; court needed Dr. Kant to testify and interpret his letters and tests results; without any corroborating testimony in support of his opinions, court questioned credibility and weight attributable to Dr. Kant s evaluation of Appellant; 1 moreover, evidence that Appellant had suicidal ideations and blade-cut markings on both forearms sufficiently supported his involuntary commitment on 5/23/02, notwithstanding Dr. Kant s contrary opinion). Our review of the relevant statutes in conjunction with the certified record leads us to conclude the trial court properly applied the law in denying Appellant s petition to expunge his mental health record to have his firearm rights reinstated. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. 1 To the extent Appellant now broadly complains that the court declared Dr. Kant s opinions incompetent after it had considered the letters without objection, see Appellant s Brief at 13, Appellant cites no truly relevant law to support his complaint. See Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1058 (Pa.Super 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 663, 34 A.3d 828 (2011) (reiterating failure to cite relevant legal authority for asserted proposition constitutes waiver of claim). Further, it was within the court s discretion to consider the opinion letters before deciding if they were sufficient, absent more, to support Appellant s contentions. Therefore, we will give this particular argument no additional attention. - 5 -
J-A12026-13 Deputy Prothonotary Date: 6/21/2013-6 -