In Re: V.A.H. Appeal of: PSP
Citation286 A.3d 1311, 2022 Pa. Super. 214
Date Filed2022-12-13
Docket1501 MDA 2021
JudgeStevens, P.J.E.
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
J-A23034-22
2022 PA Super 214
IN RE: V.A.H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: PENNSYLVANIA STATE :
POLICE :
:
:
:
: No. 1501 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-SU-001284
IN RE: V.A.H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: YORK/ADAMS MH-IDD :
PROGRAM :
:
:
:
: No. 1528 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-SU-001284
IN RE: V.A.H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: V.A.H. :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1548 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-SU-001284
J-A23034-22
BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 13, 2022
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) and
the York/Adams Mental Health – Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Program (“MH-IDD”), and Appellee/Cross-Appellant, V.A.H., each appeal from
the trial court’s October 26, 2021 order granting V.A.H.’s petition for
expungement, in part, and denying it, in part. Specifically, the October 26,
2021 order in question: (1) granted V.A.H.’s request to have her firearms
rights restored under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f) and directed the PSP to remove
from its system all barriers to V.A.H. obtaining a firearm based upon her
August 23, 2011 involuntary commitment; (2) denied V.A.H.’s request to have
the records of her involuntary commitment expunged under 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6111.1(g); and (3) ordered that V.A.H.’s involuntary commitment records
being expunged pursuant to Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. The order further directed that all of V.A.H.’s records held in
possession of any governmental entity, including the PSP and the MH-IDD, be
destroyed within 10 days. Following our careful review, we reverse the order,
in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from
the certified record, are as follows: On August 23, 2011, V.A.H. was
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-A23034-22
involuntarily committed to the York/Adams MH-IDD program at York Hospital
for 120 hours, pursuant to Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act
(“MHPA”).1 At the time, V.A.H. was fifteen years old and was examined by
Dr. Daniel J. Johnson, M.D, prior to her involuntary commitment.
As a result of her 302 commitment, V.A.H. is prohibited from possessing
or purchasing a firearm. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c)(4) (providing that a
person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for
inpatient care and treatment under Section 302 of MHPA may not possess a
firearm). On June 21, 2021, V.A.H. filed a petition to expunge, seeking to
have her firearms rights restored and to have the records of her involuntary
commitment expunged and destroyed. See “Petition to Expunge and For
Other Relief,” 6/21/21 at 1-7. A hearing on V.A.H.’s petition was initially
scheduled for July 27, 2021, and following several continuances, was
ultimately held on September 9, 2021. The primary issue addressed at this
hearing was whether V.A.H.’s request for expungement under Section
6111.1(g) could be heard, as the statute of limitations had expired. See notes
of testimony, 9/9/21 at 4.
On October 26, 2021, the trial court entered an order (1) granting
V.A.H.’s request to have her firearms rights restored under Section 6105(f)
and directing the PSP to remove from its system all barriers to her obtaining
____________________________________________
1 50 P.S. § 7302.
-3-
J-A23034-22
a firearm; (2) denying her request to have the records of her involuntary
commitment expunged under Section 6111.1(g); and (3) ordering that
V.A.H.’s involuntary commitment records be expunged based upon her right
of “protecting ... [her] reputation…” under Article I, Section I of the
Pennsylvania Constitution. The order further directed that all records held in
possession of any governmental entity be destroyed within 10 days. See trial
court order, 10/26/21 at §§ 1-3.
On November 18, 2021, both the PSP and the MH-IDD filed timely
notices of appeal. Thereafter, on December 2, 2021, V.A.H. filed her cross-
appeal.2
All of the parties’ issues on appeal challenge sections 2 and 3 of the
aforementioned expungement order. Specifically, the PSP raises the following
issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law when
ordering the expungement of a record of
involuntary commitment pursuant to Article I,
Section 1 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where the
statutory procedures to have [V.A.H.’s]
involuntary commitment record expunged
failed, the Constitution does not create a cause
of action to expunge involuntary commitments
pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act[?]
2. Did the trial court commit an error of law when
ordering the expungement of a record of
involuntary commitment pursuant to Article I,
____________________________________________
2The record reflects that the trial court and all the parties have complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4-
J-A23034-22
Section 1 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where
[V.A.H.’s] waived any claims pursuant to Article
I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by failing to
plead this cause of action in her Petition to
Expunge and for Other Relief?
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt lack subject matter
jurisdiction to order expungement where
[V.A.H.] failed to serve an indispensable party
to the action?
PSP’s brief at 5.
MH-IDD raises the following issues for our review:
I. When there was no legal basis to invalidate the
underlying [MHPA] Section 302 commitment,
did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by
granting the Petition for Expungement of
records?
A. When Article I, Section 1 of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (“Article I, Section 1”) has
not created a cause of action by which a
petitioner may seek to invalidate a
commitment pursuant to Section 302 of
the MHPA, and V.A.H’s right to seek
invalidation pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] §
6111.1(g) was time-barred, did the [trial]
court abuse its discretion by granting the
Petition for Expungement of Records?
B. Even if the Court finds that a cause of
action exists pursuant to Article I, Section
1 to invalidate an involuntary
commitment authorized pursuant to
Section 302 of the MHPA, when this claim
was not pled by V.A.H. in her Petition as
the cause of action by which she sought
to invalidate the Section 302
-5-
J-A23034-22
commitment, did [V.A.H.] waive this
claim?
C. Even if the Court finds that a cause of
action exists pursuant to Article I, Section
1 to invalidate an involuntary
commitment pursuant to Section 302 of
the MHPA, when there was sufficient
evidence that the Section 302
commitment was valid, did the [trial]
court abuse its discretion by granting the
Petition?
D. Even if the Court finds that a cause of
action exists pursuant to Article I, Section
1 to invalidate an involuntary
commitment pursuant to Section 302 of
the MHPA, when Petitioner failed to show
any due process or procedural violations,
did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by
granting the Petition?
MH-IDD’s brief at 4-5.
On cross-appeal, V.A.H. raises the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying V.A.H.’s
request for expungement relief by application of
the Statute of Limitations under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]
§ 5527(b) as matters arising from such a
request are not civil actions or proceedings and
such application created an unconstitutional
irrebuttable presumption of dangerousness[?]
II. Whether there were insufficient findings of fact
and the examining physician lacked sufficient
evidence to commit V.A.H. to a mental health
facility against her will under Section 302 of the
Mental Health Procedures Act[?]
III. Whether the Warrant ordering V.A.H. be
transported to York Hospital and examined
against her will was invalid and suffered from
procedural defects in violation of the Mental
-6-
J-A23034-22
Health Procedures Act and her due process
rights[?]
IV. Whether an individual unlawfully committed to
a mental health facility has a cause of action to
seek expungement relief under the Article I,
Section 1 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
V. Whether the request for expungement relief
under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was
properly and sufficiently raised by V.A.H. in her
Petition for Expungement Relief and throughout
the proceedings and whether the claims of legal
deficiencies in the Petition were waived?
VI. Whether the trial court had Subject Matter
Jurisdiction to hear V.A.H.’s request for relief as
all necessary parties were served and had notice
of the action?
V.A.H.’s brief at 3-4.
Our standard of review of a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an
expungement petition is well settled. “The decision to grant or deny a petition
to expunge rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review
that court’s decision for abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Romeo,
153 A.3d 1084, 1087 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations omitted). To the extent the issues raised on appeal present pure questions of law, “our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” In re B.W.,250 A.3d 1163
,
1170 (Pa. 2021) (citation omitted).
-7-
J-A23034-22
Here, V.A.H. relied on Section 6111.1(g)(2) to challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting her Section 302 commitment. Section
6111.1(g)(2) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
A person who is involuntarily committed pursuant to
section 302 of the [MHPA] 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 [PSP]
be expunged.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g)(2) (footnote omitted).
This Court has concluded that “an expungement petition under [Section]
6111.1(g)(2) is a civil action that is subject to a six-year statute of
limitation pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5527(b).” In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454,
458 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasis added); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5527(b)
(“Any civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation
specified in this subchapter or excluded from the application of a period of
limitation by section 5531 ... must be commenced within six years.”).
Instantly, the trial court found that although it did not agree with this
Court’s holding in In re: P.M., which denied expungement due to the
expiration of the statute of limitations, it was bound to follow precedent.
Accordingly, the trial court denied V.A.H.’s request to have the records of her
involuntary commitment expunged pursuant to Section 6111.1(g)(2). See
trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 1/6/22 at 2-3 (citing trial court opinion,
10/26/21 at 2-4).
-8-
J-A23034-22
There is no dispute that V.A.H. was fifteen years old at the time of her
involuntary commitment, and the statute of limitations was tolled until she
reached the age of majority, on July 30, 2014. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5533.
Accordingly, V.A.H. had until July 30, 2020 to file a timely petition for relief
under Section 6111.1(g)(2), pursuant to this Court’s holding in In re: P.M.
Since V.A.H. filed her petition for expungement on June 21, 2021, nearly one
year after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Accordingly, we will affirm that
aspect of the trial court’s order.
We now turn to the trial court’s decision to expunge V.A.H.’s 302
commitment records “based upon her constitutional right to protect her
reputation” set forth in Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Trial court opinion, 10/26/21 at 4; see also trial court order, 10/26/21 at § 3.
Following our careful review, we find that the trial court committed an
error of law when ordered that V.A.H. was entitled to the expungement of her
involuntary commitment records pursuant to Article I, Section 1, despite that
remedy being unavailable under Section 6111.1(g)(2). If the trial court’s
decision were allowed to stand, In RE: P.M., supra, a decision the trial court
was reluctant to follow, would be nullified.
As discussed, Section 6111.1(g)(2) is the statutory mechanism to obtain
Section 302 expungement relief. Contrary to the trial court’s holding, Article
I, Section 1 does not create an independent cause of action by which an
-9-
J-A23034-22
individual can seek to expunge involuntary commitments authorized under
Section 302 of the MHPA.
Specifically, Article I, Section 1 provides as follows:
All men are born equally free and independent, and
have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among
which are those of enjoying and defending life and
liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting
property and reputation, and of pursuing their own
happiness.
Pa.Const. Art. I, § 1.
Although due process is afforded to individuals seeking to invalidate an
involuntary commitment under Section 6111.1(g), V.A.H’s right to seek
expungement of her involuntary commitment records pursuant to this section
was clearly time-barred on account of her unequivocal failure to satisfy the
six-year statute of limitations.
Moreover, we find that V.A.H. waived any claims with respect to Article
I, Section 1 by failing to plead with specificity how this purported cause of
action entitled her to relief. Notably, V.A.H.’s petition is devoid of any specific
claim for relief under Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The
record further reveals that V.A.H. failed to assert sufficient material facts in
her expungement petition to support her legal conclusions, in violation of
- 10 -
J-A23034-22
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a).3 See “Petition to Expunge and
For Other Relief,” 6/21/21 at 1-7.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s October 26, 2021 order to the
extent in ordered that V.A.H.’s involuntary commitment records being
expunged pursuant to Article I, Section I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
affirm said order in all other respects.
Order affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. Case remanded for
proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/13/2022
____________________________________________
3 Rule 1019(a) provides that “[t]he material facts on which a cause of action
or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form [in the
pleading].” Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a).
- 11 -