R. Gorry v. PA State Police

144 A.3d 214, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 324, 2016 WL 3767585
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 15, 2016
Docket2168 C.D. 2015
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 A.3d 214 (R. Gorry v. PA State Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
R. Gorry v. PA State Police, 144 A.3d 214, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 324, 2016 WL 3767585 (Pa. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

OPINION BY Judge RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER.

Robert R. Gorry (Applicant) petitions for review of an October 8, 2015, Order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Office of the Attorney General sustaining a decision by the Pennsylvania State Police (State Police) to deny Applicant the right to purchase a firearm pursuant to Section 6105(c)(4) of the Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 (UFA) 1 and Section 922(g)(4) of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1964 (GCA). 2 On appeal, Applicant argues that he should not be prohibited from purchasing a firearm because he voluntarily consented to mental health care in 2012 and the law only prohibits the purchase of firearms by a person involuntarily committed. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that the State Police met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Applicant was involuntarily committed, we affirm.

Applicant attempted to purchase a firearm on June 9, 2015, and failed the required background check by the State Police. An examination of Applicant's criminal and mental health history through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) revealed that Applicant was prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result being involuntarily committed pursuant to Sections 302 and 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act 3 (MHPA). Applicant filed a timely challenge of his denial with the State Police. (R.R. at 1a-4a.) In his challenge Applicant indicated that he was never "adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed." ( Id. at 1a.) By letter dated July 10, 2015, the State Police denied his challenge and notified Applicant of the basis of his denial. The letter informed Applicant, in relevant part that "the basis for your denial can be found under 18 Pa.C.S. [§] 6105(c)(4). Also, federal law 18 U.S.C. [§] 922(g)(4), restricts any person adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed to any mental institution. Your involuntary commitments in 2012 are prohibiting." (S.R.R. at 38b.)

Applicant appealed his denial to the Office of Attorney General, which assigned the case to an ALJ. A hearing was held on October 8, 2015, where Applicant and Stephanie Dunkerley, legal assistant supervisor of the State Police's PICS Challenge Section, testified.

At the hearing, the State Police presented a packet of evidence provided to the State Police by the Lehigh County Mental Health Review Officer. The documents included an "Application for Involuntary Emergency Examination and Treatment" pursuant to Section 302 of the MHPA (Section 302 Application) completed by a social worker and two physicians at Sacred Heart Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania. ( Id. at 46b-52b.) The document states that Applicant was admitted to the facility on May 18, 2012, and that treatment was "initiated" on May 21, 2012. ( Id. at 46b.) Part VI of the Section 302 Application was completed by Farhad Sholevar, M.D., and states that Applicant was examined on May 21, 2012, and that, in Dr. Sholevar's opinion, "[t]he patient is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment. He should be admitted to a facility designated by the County Administrator for a period of treatment not to exceed 120 hours." ( Id. at 52b.)

The packet of documents also included an "Application for Extended Involuntary Treatment" pursuant to Section 303 of the MHPA (Section 303 Application). ( Id. at 41b-45b.) Part II of the Section 303 Application affirms that Applicant was informed of the actions taken pursuant to the application and that Applicant understood his rights. ( Id. at 42b.) Part III of the Section 303 Application shows that Peter Gross, M.D. concluded on May 24, 2012, that "[Applicant] continues to be severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment." ( Id. at 42b-43b.) After a hearing, at which Applicant did not attend but was appointed counsel, the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (common pleas), through the Lehigh County Mental Health Review Officer, ordered that Applicant be committed to inpatient treatment at Sacred Heart Hospital for a period of not exceeding 20 days. ( Id. at 44b.)

Applicant submitted a document entitled "Consent for Voluntary Inpatient Treatment" dated May 16, 2012. Therein, Applicant consented to "treatment which has been explained to me" and affirmed that in order to leave the facility he "must give 72 hours advance notice in writing to those in charge of my treatment." ( Id. at 53b.) Applicant testified to the ALJ that he consented to be committed for mental health treatment on May 16 because he was in distress from a recent open-heart surgery and stayed at the facility for 22 days. ( Id. at 18b-19b.) Applicant testified that he never revoked his consent to be committed and was never notified that there was a hearing on involuntary commitment. ( Id. at 18b, 20b.)

Upon review of the evidence, the ALJ concluded that the State Police met its burden of proof that Applicant was involuntarily committed to a mental health institution pursuant to Sections 302 and 303 of the MHPA and denied Applicant's appeal. ( Id. at 29b-30b; Order, R.R. at 10a.) Applicant now petitions this Court for review.

DISCUSSION

The process by which an applicant may challenge a denial of the right to purchase a firearm due to a failed PICS check is set forth in Section 6111.1(e) of the UFA, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(e). First, an applicant may "challenge the accuracy of that person's ... mental health record" to the State Police. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(e)(1). "If the challenge is ruled invalid, the person shall have the right to appeal the decision to the Attorney General" where a de novo hearing will be held before an ALJ and the State Police bears the burden to prove the accuracy of the mental health record. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(e)(3). The standard of proof in a proceeding before an ALJ is a preponderance of the evidence standard. Pa. State Police v. Slaughter, 138 A.3d 65 , 73 (Pa.Cmwlth.2016). That is, an ALJ must affirm the State Police's determination if the State Police presents evidence showing that it is "more likely than not" that the applicant was involuntarily committed pursuant to Sections 302 or 303 of the MHPA. Id. The Attorney General's determination may be appealed to this Court. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(e)(4). "Our scope of review [of the Attorney General's decision] is limited to a determination of whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law was committed or whether constitutional rights were violated." Pa. State Police v. Heggenstaller, 784 A.2d 853 , 856 n. 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Evanchick
355 F. Supp. 3d 197 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)
PSP v. R. Brandon
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 A.3d 214, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 324, 2016 WL 3767585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-gorry-v-pa-state-police-pacommwct-2016.