In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S60014-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN RE: M.B.                                            IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    APPEAL OF: PENNSYLVANIA STATE
    POLICE
    No. 366 WDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order January 30, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
    Civil Division at No(s): 2016-20-MD
    BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED JANUARY 22, 2018
    The Pennsylvania State Police (hereinafter “PSP”) appeals from the
    trial court’s January 30, 2017 order, which granted M.B. relief from his
    firearms    disability   and    expunged       the   record    of   M.B.’s   involuntary
    commitment under 50 P.S. § 7302. Respectfully, we vacate and remand.1
    ____________________________________________
    1
    PSP failed to attach its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)
    statement of errors complained of on appeal to its brief. This omission
    violates Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a)(11) and (d) and,
    as a result of this failing, M.B. requests that we dismiss PSP’s appeal. M.B.’s
    Brief at 1-2. We also note that, after M.B. filed his brief, PSP filed a “Motion
    to Append Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal”
    (hereinafter “PSP’s Motion to Append Rule 1925(b) Statement”).               We
    conclude that PSP’s failure to attach the Rule 1925(b) Statement to its brief
    is a minor violation of our rules of appellate procedure and that the failure
    does not prevent us from reviewing the merits of the issues raised on
    appeal. See, e.g., Hayward v. Hayward, 
    868 A.2d 554
    , 557 n.2 (Pa.
    Super. 2005) (holding that, “because [the appellant’s] violations of our rules
    of appellate procedure are not substantial and do not prevent us from
    reviewing the merits of the issues raised, we will address [the merits of
    appellant’s] claims”). We thus decline to dismiss this appeal. Further, we
    grant PSP’s Motion to Append Rule 1925(b) Statement.
    *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S60014-17
    On June 6, 2016, M.B. filed a “Petition to Vacate and Expunge
    Involuntary Civil Commitment” in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
    County (hereinafter “M.B.’s Petition” or “the Petition”). Within the Petition,
    M.B. averred that, in the fall of 2003, he became depressed due to “the loss
    of contact with his former girlfriend, the mother of his newborn son, and his
    best friend’s departure for military service.”   M.B.’s Petition, 6/6/16, at 2.
    Because of his depression, on the night of September 23, 2003, M.B.
    consumed alcohol and pills and, while he was heavily intoxicated, he cut his
    arms with a knife. Id.; N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 19-20.
    M.B. awoke that night “to people over top of [him] and . . . in an
    ambulance.”   N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 20.      The ambulance took him to
    Millcreek Community Hospital, where he was admitted at 12:47 a.m. on
    September 24, 2003.    M.B.’s Petition, 6/6/16, at 2; N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16,
    at 20-21. Doctors at the hospital examined M.B. that morning and moved
    him to the fourth floor of the hospital, which was the hospital’s mental
    health facility. N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 21-22.
    M.B.’s involuntary commitment was initiated by his mother, who
    completed an Application for Involuntary Emergency Examination and
    Treatment pursuant to Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act
    (hereinafter “Section 302 Certification”). M.B.’s Petition, 6/6/16, at 2; N.T.
    Hearing, 10/11/16, at 22; see also 50 P.S. § 7302 (hereinafter “Section
    -2-
    J-S60014-17
    302”).2    In the application portion of the Section 302 Certification, M.B.’s
    mother wrote:
    [M.B.] admitted to taking pills & alcohol. He left a suicide
    note for me with blood all over it. He doesn’t feel loved and
    has been depressed for approx. 1 yr. He has cut up his
    arms with a knife & they are bleeding. Suicide note said
    good bye to his best friend & family. He has been drinking
    on top of pills & is extremely agitated. Broke up with
    girlfriend & she had a baby approx. 6-9 months ago.
    Girlfriend doesn’t want anything to do with him.
    Section 302 Certification, 9/24/03, at 3.
    The Section 302 Certification declares that the county administrator
    issued a warrant authorizing M.B.’s emergency examination. As a result, at
    12:50 a.m. on September 24, 2003, a physician examined M.B. and attested
    that M.B. “is severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment.” Section
    302 Certification, 9/24/03, at 5 and 7.          Specifically, the “Physician’s
    Examination” portion of the Section 302 Certification declares that the
    physician made the following observations and findings:
    Pt brought by EMS/PSP after becoming violent, cutting
    him-self & taking 3 Effexor. Pt states he is depressed and
    states he wants to kill himself. Pt also threatened to kill
    EMS and PSP Troopers.
    ____________________________________________
    2
    Section 302 permits the involuntary emergency treatment of an individual,
    where a physician determines “that the person is severely mentally disabled
    and in need of emergency treatment.” 50 P.S. § 7302(b). Under Section
    302, the patient must be discharged “within 120 hours, unless within such
    period . . . a certification for extended involuntary emergency treatment is
    filed pursuant to” 50 P.S. § 7303. 50 P.S. § 7302(d).
    -3-
    J-S60014-17
    ...
    In my opinion:
    [] The 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.
    ...
    /s_______________________________
    SIGNATURE OF EXAMINING PHYSICIAN
    Section 302 Certification, 9/24/03, at 7.
    The Section 302 Certification was then filed in the Erie County Court of
    Common Pleas. See 
    id. at 1.
    Within M.B.’s Petition, M.B. claimed that he “was held for observation
    for three [] days following his involuntary commitment” and then discharged
    from the hospital.      M.B.’s Petition, 6/6/16, at 2-3.       Afterwards, M.B.
    participated in and completed outpatient therapy.       
    Id. at 3.
      M.B. averred
    that he “was prescribed [] medication at the hospital, which he took as
    prescribed until he completed the prescription” and that he “has not been
    prescribed medication [or] required treatment” since that time. 
    Id. Notwithstanding the
    Section 302 Certification, M.B.’s Petition declared
    that the hospital failed to comply with certain procedural mandates that are
    necessary   to   involuntarily   commit   an   individual   under   Section   302.
    Specifically, M.B. claimed that the hospital failed to advise him of his right to
    counsel and failed to provide him with:        a Form MH-783-B Explanation of
    Warrant; a Form MH-782 Bill of Rights; and, a Form MH-783-A Explanation
    -4-
    J-S60014-17
    of Rights Under Involuntary Emergency Commitment.           M.B.’s Petition,
    6/6/16, at 2; N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 23-29.       As M.B. claimed, 55
    Pa.Code § 5100.86 required the hospital to provide him with all of the above
    before it could involuntarily commit him under Section 302. M.B.’s Petition,
    6/6/16, at 2.
    M.B.’s Petition contained four counts.   Count One claimed that the
    hospital failed to provide him with the procedural safeguards required by 55
    Pa.Code § 5100.86. M.B. thus requested that the trial court “vacat[e] and
    expung[e his] September 24, 2003 involuntary mental health commitment,
    pursuant to 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6111.1(g)(2) and Article 1, Section 1 of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution.” 
    Id. at 4-5.
    In Count Two, M.B. alleged that he “was never provided a hearing in
    relation to the [Section] 302” commitment and, yet, the Section 302
    commitment “putatively stripped [M.B. of his] fundamental right” to possess
    a firearm.      
    Id. at 7.
      M.B. claimed that, “by failing to provide any
    opportunity for [him] to be heard . . . , the deprivation of [M.B.’s]
    fundamental right to possess firearms for self-defense was arbitrary and
    violated his right to due process.” 
    Id. (emphasis omitted).
    As such, M.B.
    claimed that the trial court must expunge his September 24, 2003
    involuntary commitment, pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the United
    States Constitution. 
    Id. at 7-8.
    In his third count, M.B. claimed that his single involuntary commitment
    was insufficient to strip him of his right to bear arms under the Second
    -5-
    J-S60014-17
    Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 21 of
    the Pennsylvania Constitution.         
    Id. at 8-9.
      On this basis, M.B. requested
    that the trial court expunge the record of his involuntary commitment.
    Finally, in Count Four, M.B. requested that the trial court grant him
    state relief from his firearm disability, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f).
    
    Id. at 10-11.
    PSP answered M.B.’s petition and denied that M.B. was entitled to
    relief on any of his claims. See PSP’s Answer, 7/15/16, at 1-8.
    On October 11, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the matter. At
    the beginning of the hearing, PSP introduced into evidence an “Application
    for Extended Involuntary Treatment Pursuant to Section 303 of the Mental
    Health Procedures Act” (hereinafter “Section 303 Certification”).             N.T.
    Hearing, 10/11/16, at 6-7; see also 50 P.S. § 7303 (hereinafter “Section
    303”).3    According to PSP’s proffer, the Section 303 Certification: named
    ____________________________________________
    3
    Section 303 is entitled “Extended involuntary emergency treatment
    certified by a judge or mental health review officer--not to exceed twenty
    days.” This section authorizes “extended involuntary emergency treatment”
    for any person who is being treated under Section 302, whenever the facility
    determines – and the judge or mental health review officer agrees – that
    “the need for emergency treatment is likely to extend beyond 120 hours.”
    See 50 P.S. § 7303(a) and (c). In such event, Section 303 permits
    extended involuntary emergency treatment for a term not to exceed “20
    days after the filing of the certification.” 50 P.S. § 7303(h).
    As this Court has recognized, “commitment under § 7303 indicates a more
    serious mental problem [than commitment under § 7302] . . . [and] imposes
    major due process requirements.” In re Jacobs, 
    15 A.3d 509
    , 511 (Pa.
    Super. 2011). The due process requirements imposed by Section 303
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    -6-
    J-S60014-17
    M.B. as the patient; was filed on September 25, 2003, in the Erie County
    Court of Common Pleas; and, declared that the mental health review officer
    “finds that the patient [is] severely mentally disabled and is in need of”
    inpatient treatment, at Millcreek, “pursuant to the provisions of section 303
    of the Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976 for a period of 20 days.”
    Section 303 Certification, 9/25/03, at 4.
    M.B. challenged the Section 303 Certification at the October 11, 2016
    hearing. Initially, M.B. noted that, while his name was spelled correctly on
    two of the four pages, his last name was spelled incorrectly on the other two
    pages.4 N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 8. As a result, M.B. argued, he was “not
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    include: the court of common pleas must appoint an attorney to represent
    the patient during the Section 303 proceedings, unless the patient “can
    afford, and desires to have, private representation;” an “informal hearing”
    must be conducted by a judge or a mental health review officer within 24
    hours after the application for extended involuntary emergency treatment is
    filed; during the informal hearing, “[t]he person or his representative shall
    have the right to ask questions of the physician and of any other witnesses
    and to present any relevant information;” to commit an individual under
    Section 303, the judge or mental health review officer must certify “that the
    person is severely mentally disabled and in need of continued involuntary
    treatment;” and, if the informal hearing was conducted by a mental health
    review officer, the patient must be given “the right to petition the court of
    common pleas for review of the certification” – and a “hearing shall be held
    within 72 hours after the petition is filed.” See 50 P.S. § 7303(a)-(h).
    4
    The record in this matter is sealed. Therefore, we may not disclose M.B.’s
    last name or the slightly different name that was used on two of the four
    pages of the Section 303 Certification. However, we note that M.B.’s last
    name contains six letters and that the divergent name alters the second and
    third letters of his last name. In particular, the letters “O-W” are substituted
    for “A-U.” See N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 10-11 (the trial court examined
    the Section 303 Certification and declared, on the record, that M.B.’s name
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    -7-
    J-S60014-17
    sure that [the Section 303 Certification was] in relation to” him. M.B. thus
    objected to the Section 303 Certification on relevancy grounds.      See 
    id. Further, M.B.
    declared that the Section 303 Certification was issued within
    24 hours of the original commitment. 
    Id. at 8-9.
    M.B. argued that, “[s]ince
    the [Section] 302 [commitment] is good for 120 hours, that seems a little
    bit suspect, as well as the fact that he was released within 120 hours.” 
    Id. at 9.
    Therefore, M.B. also objected to the Section 303 Certification because
    there was a question as to “whether it was executed lawfully.”            
    Id. Notwithstanding M.B.’s
    objections, the trial court admitted PSP’s Section 303
    Certification into evidence. 
    Id. at 11.
    During the hearing, M.B. testified regarding: his depression in the fall
    of 2003; his intoxication and self-injury on the night of September 23, 2003;
    and, his involuntary commitment at Millcreek Community Hospital, which
    began at 12:47 a.m. on September 24, 2003. See 
    id. at 17-22.
    M.B. also
    testified that, to his recollection, during his commitment:    he was never
    informed of his right to an attorney; he was never provided an attorney; no
    hearing ever occurred; and, he never saw the Form MH-783-B Explanation
    of Warrant, the Form MH-782 Bill of Rights, or the Form MH-783-A
    Explanation of Rights Under Involuntary Emergency Commitment.          Id. at
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    appears on two of the four pages and that a divergent name, with the letters
    “O-W” substituted for “A-U,” appears on the other two pages).
    -8-
    J-S60014-17
    22-27. Further, according to M.B., the first time he discovered “that a 302
    petition had been executed in relation to [him]” was in 2012 or 2013, when
    PSP denied his application to purchase a firearm. 
    Id. at 22.
    M.B. testified that he was released from Millcreek Community Hospital
    on September 29, 2003, or five days after his initial commitment. 
    Id. at 29.
    Since that time, M.B. testified, he has cultivated a successful career and
    lives with his long-time girlfriend and her son. 
    Id. at 30-32.
    M.B. testified
    that, since his release, he: drinks alcohol socially and does not use illegal
    drugs; has not had an irrational desire to harm himself or others; and, has
    never been committed to a facility for mental health reasons.5 
    Id. at 32-33.
    Finally, M.B. testified that, on March 25, 2016, he was examined by
    psychologist Dr. Michael M. Keil.         Dr. Keil later issued a report, where he
    opined that M.B. may safely own and possess a firearm without threat to
    himself or others. 
    Id. at 33-36;
    see also Dr. Keil’s Psychological Evaluation
    Report, 3/25/16, at 1-5 (admitted into evidence as M.B.’s Exhibit “B”).
    With the exception of the Section 303 Certification, PSP did not
    introduce any witnesses, documents, or other evidence. The hearing then
    concluded.
    ____________________________________________
    5
    M.B. testified that, after his release from the hospital, he was arrested one
    time (for driving under the influence (“DUI”)). M.B. testified that this DUI
    charge was resolved via accelerated rehabilitative disposition and that the
    charge was later dismissed and the record of his arrest expunged. N.T.
    Hearing, 10/11/16, at 33.
    -9-
    J-S60014-17
    On January 4, 2017, the trial court entered its initial order in the
    matter.    The order granted M.B. state relief from his firearm disability
    pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f), but did not expunge the record of M.B.’s
    involuntary commitment. The order declares:
    AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2017, upon consideration
    of Petitioner M.B.’s Petition to Vacate and Expunge the
    Involuntary Commitment, a hearing on the same, and the
    well-reasoned briefs of the parties on their respective
    positions, it is the ORDER of this Court that the subject
    Petition be and is hereby GRANTED pursuant only to
    Petitioner’s Count [Four], which seeks state relief under 18
    [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6105(f)(1).     Accordingly, M.B.’s right to
    possess firearms shall be and is hereby restored; however,
    M.B.’s involuntary commitment pursuant to either 50 P.S.
    § 7302 or § 7303 is not expunged.
    Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/4/17, at 4.
    On January 13, 2017, M.B. filed a motion for reconsideration and
    claimed that the trial court erred when it refused to expunge the record of
    his involuntary commitment. M.B.’s Motion for Reconsideration, 1/13/17, at
    1-4.   That same day, the trial court entered an order expressly granting
    reconsideration of its January 4, 2017 order. Trial Court Order, 1/13/17, at
    1.
    On January 30, 2017, the trial court entered a final Opinion and Order
    in the matter. The January 30, 2017 order reads:
    AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2017, upon
    reconsideration of M.B.’s Petition to Vacate and Expunge the
    Involuntary Commitment, a hearing on the same, and the
    well-reasoned briefs of the parties on their respective
    positions, it is the ORDER of this Court that the subject
    Petition be and is hereby GRANTED pursuant to Petitioner’s
    - 10 -
    J-S60014-17
    Count [One], which seeks relief under 18 [Pa.C.S.A.]
    § 6111.1(g)(2). Accordingly, M.B.’s involuntary commitment
    pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7302 shall be expunged.
    The Court hereby reaffirms the provisions of the Opinion
    and Order dated January 4, 2017, with the exception of
    those portions relating to 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6111.1.
    Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 6.
    As is evident from the above, the trial court did not order the record of
    the Section 303 Certification expunged.      However, within the trial court’s
    accompanying opinion, the trial court specifically declared that it “[did] not
    believe M.B. was committed pursuant to” Section 303 and, also, that the
    Section 303 Certification was “entirely invalid.”       Trial Court Opinion,
    1/30/17, at 4-5. The trial court reasoned:
    While the [trial c]ourt agrees that lower courts generally
    may not review a [Section 303] commitment under 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1, the [trial c]ourt believes that the
    alleged Section 303 commitment in this case was entirely
    invalid, and that M.B.’s commitment was done pursuant
    only to Section 302. . . .
    A number of disparities were revealed during the hearing in
    this matter regarding M.B.’s alleged Section 303
    commitment. Although [PSP] submitted a putative 303
    Petition, said Petition has several different names specified
    therein.    Moreover, [PSP] produced the putative 303
    Petition less than [24] hours before the October [11], 2016
    hearing after having acknowledged that [PSP] was told that
    no Section 303 Petition existed. Procedurally, M.B. testified
    that he never attended a hearing in regards to a Section
    303 commitment, nor did M.B. have an attorney appointed
    on his behalf. There was no record of the Section 303
    proceedings provided to M.B. or to this Court. The Section
    303 Petition submitted to the Court also fails to include any
    of the necessary Section 302 forms, as required by 50 P.S.
    § 7303(d)(3). Of further interest, M.B. was released within
    - 11 -
    J-S60014-17
    [120] hours from his commitment, which is the timeframe
    for an involuntary commitment pursuant to Section 302. . .
    . Finally, no evidence was presented in support of the fact
    that M.B.’s examining doctors were either psychiatrists or
    clinical psychologists, as required by 18 [Pa.C.S.A.]
    § 6111.1(k).
    Because the record is so devoid of facts necessary to
    support a valid 50 P.S. § 7303 commitment, which . . .
    demands more procedural safeguards than a Section 302
    commitment, the Court does not believe M.B. was
    committed pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7303. Instead, the Court
    believes M.B.’s involuntary commitment was pursuant to 50
    P.S. § 7302 only.
    Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5 (some internal capitalization
    omitted).
    PSP filed a timely notice of appeal. It now raises two claims to this
    Court:
    [1.] Did the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
    exceed its jurisdiction, commit an error of law and abuse its
    discretion in disregarding the record of M.B.’s commitment
    pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7303?
    [2.] Did the trial court commit an error of law by applying
    the incorrect standard of review?
    PSP’s Brief at 4.6
    ____________________________________________
    6
    The trial court ordered PSP to file and serve a concise statement of errors
    complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 1925(b). PSP complied with the trial court’s order and, within its
    Rule 1925(b) statement, PSP listed the two issues currently raised on
    appeal. PSP’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 3/29/17, at 1. Specifically, PSP’s
    Rule 1925(b) statement declares:
    [1.] The [trial] court committed an error of law, and/or
    abused its discretion, in determining that, despite
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 12 -
    J-S60014-17
    First, PSP claims that the trial court “exceed[ed] its jurisdiction,
    commit[ed] an error of law and abuse[d] its discretion in disregarding the
    record of M.B.’s commitment pursuant to” Section 303.          
    Id. This claim
    is
    composed of three subparts:           first, PSP argues that the Court of Common
    Pleas of Clearfield County did not have jurisdiction to interpret the Section
    303 Certification and hold that the Section 303 Certification did not pertain
    to M.B.; second, PSP argues that, even if the trial court had the authority to
    interpret the Section 303 Certification to determine whether the Section 303
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    competent evidence to the contrary, [M.B.] had not been
    subject to an involuntary commitment pursuant to 50 P.S.
    § 7303, when the court was without jurisdiction to do so
    pursuant to statute and case law, and subsequently ordered
    expungement of [M.B.’s] involuntary commitment pursuant
    to 50 P.S. § 7302.     See: 50 P.S. § 7115 (venue and
    location of legal proceedings); see also: 18 [Pa.C.S.A.]
    § 6111.1(e) (challenge to records); [In re Jacobs,] 
    15 A.3d 509
    (Pa. Super. 2011).
    [2.] The [trial] court committed an error of law, or abused
    its discretion in requiring [PSP] to prove by a clear and
    convincing standard of review contrary to the Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court’s holding in [In re Vencil,] 
    152 A.3d 235
             (Pa. 2017), that [M.B.’s] involuntary commitment pursuant
    to 50 P.S. § 7302 was sufficient as a matter of law.
    PSP’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 3/29/17, at 1 (some internal capitalization
    omitted).
    Further, the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion to this Court, where it
    responded to PSP’s claims. We note that, within the trial court’s Rule
    1925(a) opinion, the trial court declared that its factual findings were not an
    abuse of discretion. Trial Court Opinion, 4/4/17, at 1.
    - 13 -
    J-S60014-17
    Certification applied to M.B., the trial court’s conclusion that it did not
    pertain to M.B. constituted an abuse of discretion; and, third, PSP claims
    that, “since the Section 303 [Certification] in this case was pertaining to
    M.B., the [trial c]ourt did not have jurisdiction to rule that ‘the alleged
    Section 303 [Certification in] this case was entirely invalid’ for any reason.”
    See PSP’s Brief at 8-12. We will consider the three sub-issues in the order
    listed above.
    PSP initially claims that the trial court did not have the power to
    interpret the Section 303 Certification to determine whether the Section 303
    Certification applied to M.B. PSP argues:
    The Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County was
    without jurisdiction to determine that the record presented
    by [PSP] evidencing M.B. had been subject to an extended
    involuntary commitment under 50 P.S. § 7303[] did not
    pertain to M.B. The record was provided to [PSP] by the
    Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
    as pertaining to [M.B.] In holding that “the court does not
    believe M.B. was committed pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7303,”
    [the trial court] exceeded its jurisdiction because its ruling
    impermissibly intrudes on a matter solely within the
    jurisdiction of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas as to
    its own records and proceedings, and disregarded
    competent evidence it had no authority to review.
    PSP’s Brief at 8.
    PSP has cited no legal precedent or law to support this argument,
    other than citing to the broad legal proposition that “every court of record
    has a ‘supervisory and protecting charge over its records, and has inherent
    - 14 -
    J-S60014-17
    power to amend its records.’”         PSP’s Brief at 8, citing Commonwealth v.
    Smith, 
    229 A.2d 18
    , 20 (Pa. Super. 1967).
    Simply stated, the trial court in this case had the power to interpret
    the Section 303 Certification and conclude that the Section 303 Certification
    did not pertain to M.B. Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/17, at 5. To be sure, PSP
    introduced the Section 303 Certification into evidence at the hearing and the
    trial court was the factfinder in this case. In presiding over the hearing, the
    trial court naturally enjoyed the inherent power to resolve evidentiary
    questions and issues of fact – including what evidence was relevant to the
    parties and proceedings and what evidence it believed or disbelieved. See,
    e.g., Fetzer v. Vishneski, 
    582 A.2d 23
    , 25 (Pa. Super. 1990) (“[w]hen
    sitting without a jury, the trial court acts as the finder of fact, and the trial
    court’s findings have the same force and effect as a jury verdict”). Thus, the
    trial court had the power to determine that the Section 303 Certification did
    not pertain to M.B., but, rather, that the certification concerned some other
    individual. PSP’s argument to the contrary fails.
    Next, PSP claims, the trial court’s factual conclusion that the Section
    303 Certification did not pertain to M.B. was against the weight of the
    evidence.7     PSP’s Brief at 9-12; see also Trial Court Opinion and Order,
    ____________________________________________
    7
    Within the trial court’s opinion, the trial court declared that it “[did] not
    believe M.B. was committed pursuant to” Section 303 and that the Section
    303 Certification was “entirely invalid.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/17, at 4-5.
    Obviously, “[h]uman language is not a perfect vehicle for conveying thought,
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 15 -
    J-S60014-17
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    and it frequently happens that words used have a broader or narrower
    meaning than that intended by the person using them.” Kennington v.
    Hemingway, 
    57 So. 809
    , 811 (Miss. 1912).                  Here, we find some
    uncertainty in the trial court’s declaration that it “[did] not believe M.B. was
    committed pursuant to” Section 303. Two possible interpretations emerge
    from the trial court’s use of these words: 1) the Section 303 Certification
    was a valid certification against some person, but the certification did not
    concern M.B. and, instead, pertained to some other individual, or 2) the
    Section 303 Certification concerned M.B., but the facility and the courts
    failed to follow the proper procedure to commit M.B. “pursuant to” Section
    303 – and that the Section 303 Certification was thus “entirely invalid.” In
    other words, when the trial court declared that it “[did] not believe M.B. was
    committed pursuant to” Section 303 and that the Section 303 Certification
    was “entirely invalid,” was the trial court giving one reason or two?
    We (like M.B. and PSP) believe that – when the trial court declared that it
    “[did] not believe M.B. was committed pursuant to” Section 303 – the trial
    court meant that the certification did not concern M.B. and, instead,
    pertained to some other individual. See M.B.’s Brief at 7 (“the trial court
    found that the putative 303 Petition . . . was not in relation to [M.B.]”);
    PSP’s Brief at 8 (arguing that the trial court erred when it concluded that the
    Section 303 Certification “did not pertain to M.B.”).
    Our conclusion finds support in the fact that the trial court’s opinion
    emphasizes that the Section 303 Certification “has several different names
    specified therein.”      Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5.
    However, and more importantly, we again note that the trial court only
    ordered that the record of M.B.’s Section 302 commitment be expunged.
    Trial Court Order, 1/30/17, at 1. To be sure, the trial court’s final order in
    the matter expressly holds that the record of the Section 303 commitment is
    not expunged. This is because the trial court’s initial order of January 4,
    2017 declared that “M.B.’s involuntary commitment pursuant to either 50
    P.S. § 7302 or § 7303 is not expunged;” the trial court’s final order of
    January 30, 2017 then expunged only the Section 302 commitment – and
    the final order further declared that, with the exception of the Section 302
    expunction, the trial court “reaffirms the provisions of the Opinion and
    Order dated January 4, 2017.” Trial Court Order, 1/4/17, at 1 (emphasis
    added); Trial Court Order, 1/30/17, at 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, since
    the trial court’s final order of January 30, 2017 “reaffirm[ed]” the portion of
    its earlier, January 4, 2017 order that refused to expunge the record of the
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 16 -
    J-S60014-17
    1/30/17, at 4-5. Although, (as we stated above) the trial court enjoys the
    authority,    within    the    context    of     a   proceeding   under   18   Pa.C.S.A.
    § 6111.1(g)(2), to determine whether a Section 303 commitment pertains to
    the petitioner, we agree with PSP in this case that the trial court’s factual
    conclusion was against the weight of the evidence and an abuse of
    discretion.
    Our examination of PSP’s claim is guided by the settled principles that
    govern a weight of the evidence claim.                   As our Supreme Court has
    explained:
    A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is
    against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the
    discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be
    granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    Section 303 commitment, the record of the Section 303 commitment is not
    expunged.
    As will be explained later in this memorandum, the trial court could not have
    expunged the record of the Section 302 commitment if it believed M.B. had
    been committed pursuant to Section 303. See In re 
    Jacobs, 15 A.3d at 511
    (the appellant was involuntarily committed under Sections 302 and 303
    and requested that the trial court expunge the record of his involuntary
    commitments; this Court held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
    review the Section 303 commitment and that, with respect to his Section
    302 commitment, the appellant’s claim was “moot because even if he is
    entitled to expunction [of his Section 302 commitment], expunction cannot
    go forward because appellant was also involuntarily committed under §
    7303”). Hence, the trial court must have concluded that the Section 303
    Certification did not pertain to M.B. – as this was the only way the trial court
    could have expunged the record of M.B.’s Section 302 commitment without
    expunging the Section 303 Certification.
    - 17 -
    J-S60014-17
    because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at
    a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is
    to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts
    are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to
    give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
    It has often been stated that a new trial should be awarded
    when the [factfinder’s] verdict is so contrary to the evidence
    as to shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new
    trial is imperative so that right may be given another
    opportunity to prevail.
    An appellate court's standard of review when presented with
    a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard
    of review applied by the trial court:
    Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
    exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
    of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
    evidence. Because the trial judge has had the
    opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented,
    an appellate court will give the gravest consideration
    to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
    judge when reviewing a trial court's determination
    that the verdict is against the weight of the
    evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for
    granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's
    conviction that the verdict was or was not against
    the weight of the evidence and that a new trial
    should be granted in the interest of justice.
    This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the
    trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial
    based on a challenge to the weight of the evidence is
    unfettered. In describing the limits of a trial court's
    discretion, [the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has]
    explained:
    The term discretion imports the exercise of
    judgment, wisdom and skill so as to reach a
    dispassionate conclusion within the framework of the
    law, and is not exercised for the purpose of giving
    effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be
    exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to
    prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary
    - 18 -
    J-S60014-17
    actions. Discretion is abused where the course
    pursued represents not merely an error of judgment,
    but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable
    or where the law is not applied or where the record
    shows that the action is a result of partiality,
    prejudice, bias or ill-will.
    Commonwealth v. Clay, 
    64 A.3d 1049
    , 1055 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations,
    quotations, and emphasis omitted).8
    ____________________________________________
    8
    On appeal, M.B. does not claim that PSP waived its weight of the evidence
    claim. Nevertheless, we note that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
    that govern petition practice regulate the procedure in this case. See 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g)(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”) (emphasis added); Pa.R.C.P. 206.1-206.7; see
    also Clearfield County Local Rule 206.1(a)(2) (“‘petition’ means . . . any
    proper matter for which no other specific procedure is authorized or in which
    only a Petition is prescribed as the authorized procedure for bringing such
    matter before the Court for disposition”). Therefore, PSP was not permitted
    to file a post-trial motion in this case. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 note (“[a]
    motion for post-trial relief may not be filed to matters governed exclusively
    by the rules of petition practice”).
    Since post-trial motions were prohibited, the first time PSP could have
    claimed that the trial court’s factual findings were against the weight of the
    evidence was in its Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on
    appeal. See Criswell v. King, 
    834 A.2d 505
    , 511 (Pa. 2003) (a weight of
    the evidence claim “is a claim which, by definition, ripens only after the
    verdict”). Further, PSP, in fact, raised the weight claim in its Rule 1925(b)
    statement and the trial court responded to PSP’s weight claim in its opinions.
    PSP’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 3/29/17, at 1; Trial Court Opinion, 4/4/17, at
    1; Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5. Therefore, we conclude
    that, since PSP raised the weight claim in its Rule 1925(b) statement and
    since the trial court explained its reasoning in its various opinions, PSP
    preserved its weight of the evidence claim on appeal. See In re Estate of
    Smaling, 
    80 A.3d 485
    , 490-493 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (holding that,
    given the optional nature of exceptions in Orphans’ Court proceedings, the
    appellant did not waive her weight of the evidence claim when she failed to
    file exceptions in the case – and, in fact, first raised the weight of the
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 19 -
    J-S60014-17
    The Section 303 Certification consists of a form that includes
    handwritten responses to typed, form questions and headings.          We have
    underlined the portions of the form that are handwritten. Moreover, we note
    that the form includes at least two different handwriting sources:          the
    introduction, Part I, Part II, and the patient’s name on Part III are written in
    (what the trial court found and what appears to be) one individual’s
    handwriting; the remainder of Part III, as well as Part IV, are written in
    (what the trial court found and what appears to be) a different handwriting
    source or sources.          See N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 10-11 (trial court
    examined the Section 303 Certification and recognized, on the record, the
    two different spellings of the patient’s name in the document, as well as the
    different handwriting on the form). The Section 303 Certification reads as
    follows:
    APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED INVOLUNTARY
    TREATMENT
    MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT OF 1976
    (SECTION 303)
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    evidence claim in her Rule 1925(b) statement; we explained: “by their
    nature, [weight of the evidence claims] can only arise after the court issues
    its final decision in a matter. . . . [B]y raising her weight claim in a
    timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] successfully preserved
    the issue for appellate review”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 
    689 A.2d 211
    , 212-213 (Pa. 1997) (holding: at a time when post-sentence
    motions were optional, the appellant preserved his weight of the evidence
    claim when he raised the claim in his Rule 1925(b) statement and where the
    trial court discussed the weight claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion).
    - 20 -
    J-S60014-17
    NAME OF PATIENT         AGE            SEX
    [M.B.]                  20             M
    NAME OF COUNTY PROGRAM                       NAME OF BSU
    ERIE MH/ONR                                  ERIE MLT/BSU
    NAME OF FACILITY              ADMISSION DATE
    Millcreek Behav Hlth          9/24/03
    ...
    PART I
    REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION
    [M.B.] has acted in such manner as to cause a responsible
    party to believe that he/she is severely mentally disabled as
    specified in the attached 302 form. He/she was admitted to
    Millcreek Behav Hlth for involuntary emergency examination
    and treatment on 9/24/03 at 1250 AM under Section 302.
    He/she was examined by Dr. Ulus and was found to be in
    need of continued treatment.         I respectfully request,
    therefore, that he/she be certified by the court for extended
    involuntary emergency treatment under Section 303.
    /s________________________                       9/24/03
    (SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER)                        (DATE)
    CEO
    (TITLE OF PETITIONER)
    PART II
    THE PATIENT’S RIGHTS
    I affirm that I have informed the patient of the actions I
    am taking and have explained to the patient these
    procedures and his/her rights as described in Form MH
    784-A. I believe that he/she [X] understands . . . these
    rights.
    /s________________________________               9/24/03
    (SIGNATURE OF PERSON GIVING RIGHTS)              (DATE)
    - 21 -
    J-S60014-17
    ________________________________________________
    PART III
    PHYSICIAN’S EXAMINATION
    I hereby affirm that I have examined [M.B.] on 9/24/03
    to determine if he[] continued to be severely mentally ill
    and in need of treatment.
    RESULTS OF EXAMINATION
    FINDINGS: (Describe your findings in detail. . . .)
    The pt. has been admitted due to his admitting to suicidal
    plans, cutting himself for a while, depression and alcohol
    abuse, does not want to stay, he would be a danger for
    himself if released before mental stabilization. Expected to
    be returned on the unit. . . .
    In my opinion: (Check A. or B.)
    A. [X] The patient continues to be severely mentally
    disabled and in need of treatment.
    ...
    /s__________________________________                 9/24/03
    (SIGNATURE OF EXAMINING OR TREATING PHYSICIAN)       (DATE)
    ________________________________________________
    PART IV
    CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT FOR EXTENDED
    INVOLUNTARY EMERGENCY TREATMENT – SECTION
    303
    In the court of Common Pleas of Erie County. . . .
    In re: [M.B. (sic)] . . .
    Certification for Extended Treatment
    - 22 -
    J-S60014-17
    This 25 day of Sept, 19 2003 after hearing and
    consideration of (Details of findings. Include details as to
    what type and why treatment is needed. . . .)
    Ad: 9/24/03; suicidal; written note w/his blood - cutting
    himself; DX – mood disorder n.o.s.; depressed & angry
    mood; reclusive; morbid depression; reasonable risk of
    suicide if discharged.
    The court finds that the patient [X] is . . . severely
    mentally disabled and in need of treatment. Accordingly,
    the court orders that: . . .
    [M.B. (sic)] receive:      . . . [X] inpatient treatment
    which is the least restrictive treatment setting appropriate
    for the patient at Millcreek as a severely mentally disabled
    person pursuant to the provisions of section 303 of the
    Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976 for a period of 20
    days.
    ...
    I have explained to the patient that if his/her conference
    was before a Mental Health Review Officer he/she may
    petition the court for a review of any decisions reached at
    this conference.
    ...
    [] The patient was represented by _______Joe Burt______
    (NAME OF ATTORNEY)
    __Public Defender___
    (ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY)
    ...
    for the court /s__[(illegible)]______
    _____MHRO_________
    (TITLE)
    Section 303 Certification, 9/25/03, at 1-4.
    - 23 -
    J-S60014-17
    The last page of the Section 303 Certification contains a time stamp,
    which reads:
    COMMON PLEAS COURT
    ERIE, PA
    2003 SEP 25        P 3:52
    CLERK OF RECORDS
    PROTHONOTARY
    
    Id. at 4.
    As noted above, the trial court did not order the record of the Section
    303 Certification expunged. However, within the trial court’s accompanying
    opinion, the trial court declared that it “[did] not believe M.B. was committed
    pursuant to” Section 303 and that the Section 303 Certification was “entirely
    invalid.” Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5. Further, within the
    trial court’s opinion, it explained that it arrived at its factual conclusions
    because:    the Section 303 Certification “has several different names
    specified therein;” PSP “produced the putative 303 Petition less than [24]
    hours before the October [11], 2016 hearing after having acknowledged that
    PSP was told that no Section 303 Petition existed;” and, “M.B. was released
    within [120] hours from his commitment, which is the timeframe for an
    involuntary commitment pursuant to Section 302.” Trial Court Opinion and
    Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5. The trial court also noted several alleged procedural
    irregularities with the Section 303 Certification. The trial court found:
    - 24 -
    J-S60014-17
    M.B. testified that he never attended a hearing in regards to
    a Section 303 commitment, nor did M.B. have an attorney
    appointed on his behalf[; t]here was no record of the
    Section 303 proceedings provided to M.B. or to [the trial
    court; t]he Section 303 Petition submitted to the [trial
    c]ourt [] fails to include any of the necessary Section 302
    forms, as required by 50 P.S. § 7303(d)(3) . . . [; and,] no
    evidence was presented in support of the fact that M.B.’s
    examining doctors were either psychiatrists or clinical
    psychologists, as required by 18 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 6111.1(k).
    Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5.
    To the extent the trial court concluded that the Section 303
    Certification did not pertain to M.B., we conclude that this factual finding was
    against the weight of the evidence and, thus, an abuse of discretion.
    In this case, the trial court concluded that the Section 303 Certification
    did not pertain to M.B. because: the Section 303 Certification “has several
    different names specified therein;” there were several alleged procedural
    irregularities with the Section 303 Certification; and, “M.B. was released
    within [120] hours from his commitment, which is the timeframe for an
    involuntary commitment pursuant to Section 302.” See Trial Court Opinion
    and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5.9
    ____________________________________________
    9
    The trial court also declared that PSP “produced the putative 303 Petition
    less than [24] hours before the October [11], 2016 hearing after having
    acknowledged that PSP was told that no Section 303 Petition existed.” Trial
    Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5.          However, this finding is
    irrelevant to the question of whether M.B. was made subject to extended
    emergency involuntary treatment under Section 303 and whether a Section
    303 Certification was filed against M.B. Indeed, the fact that PSP produced
    the Section 303 Certification “less than [24] hours before the October [11],
    2016 hearing after having acknowledged that PSP was told that no Section
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 25 -
    J-S60014-17
    In view of the judgment, wisdom, and skill required in the exercise of
    judicial discretion, it was manifestly unreasonable for the trial court to
    conclude that the weight of the evidence supported its factual finding that
    the Section 303 Certification pertained to some other individual – and not
    M.B. Certainly: on two of the four pages of the Section 303 Certification,
    M.B. is identified as the patient; on the other two pages of the Section 303
    Certification, a slightly different spelling appears where, in M.B.’s six-letter
    last name, the second and third letters of his last name are altered from “A-
    U” to “O-W;” the Section 303 Certification contains the proper date of
    admission    (9/24/03),       time    of   admission   (12:50   a.m.),   and   facility
    (Millcreek); the Section 303 Certification contains M.B.’s proper age at the
    time of admission (20 years old); and, the symptoms and behavior that the
    physician noted in the Section 303 Certification were the same symptoms
    and behavior that were noted in the Section 302 Certification and that M.B.
    admitted to during the October 11, 2016 hearing.            Specifically, during the
    October 11, 2016 hearing, M.B. admitted that, at the time of his
    commitment, he suffered from depression; further, the Section 302
    Certification declares that M.B. was involuntarily committed because he took
    pills and alcohol, cut himself, and left a bloody suicide note.            See N.T.
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    303 Petition existed” is only relevant to the admissibility of the Section 303
    Certification – and the trial court specifically admitted the Section 303
    Certification into evidence at the hearing. N.T. Hearing, 10/11/16, at 11.
    - 26 -
    J-S60014-17
    Hearing, 10/11/16, at 18; Section 302 Certification, 9/24/03, at 3 and 7.
    Similarly, the Section 303 Certification declares:
    The pt. has been admitted due to his admitting to suicidal
    plans, cutting himself for a while, depression and alcohol
    abuse, does not want to stay, he would be a danger for
    himself if released before mental stabilization. Expected to
    be returned on the unit. . . .
    ...
    Ad: 9/24/03; suicidal; written note w/his blood - cutting
    himself; DX – mood disorder n.o.s.; depressed & angry
    mood; reclusive; morbid depression; [(illegible)] risk of
    suicide if discharged.
    Section 303 Certification, 9/25/03, at 2-3.
    Further, to the extent the trial court held that M.B. was denied certain
    procedural requirements, such as a hearing and an attorney appointed on
    his behalf – simply because M.B. testified that he could not recollect
    whether, 13 years prior, he received a hearing and an appointed attorney –
    we note that the Section 303 Certification specifically declares that M.B. was
    given a hearing before a mental health review officer and that, during the
    hearing, M.B. was represented by attorney Joe Burt. 
    Id. at 2-4.
    Finally, the trial court noted that “M.B. was released within [120]
    hours from his commitment, which is the timeframe for an involuntary
    commitment pursuant to Section 302.”          Trial Court Opinion and Order,
    1/30/17, at 4-5. However, this finding is of limited import to the question of
    whether M.B. was made subject to extended emergency involuntary
    treatment under Section 303 and whether a Section 303 Certification was
    - 27 -
    J-S60014-17
    filed against M.B.     Certainly, even though the Section 303 Certification
    authorized extended involuntary emergency treatment for an additional 20
    days, 50 P.S. § 7303(h) demands that a person be discharged “[w]henever
    [he] is no longer severely mentally disabled or in need of immediate
    treatment and, in any event, within 20 days after the filing of the
    certification.”    50 P.S. § 7303(h).     Therefore, even if the Section 303
    Certification permits extended involuntary emergency treatment for 20 days,
    the facility is required to discharge the patient prior to that date if the facility
    determines that “[he] is no longer severely mentally disabled or in need of
    immediate treatment.” 
    Id. Respectfully, when
    the trial court concluded that the Section 303
    Certification did not pertain to M.B. – and when the trial court declared that
    this particular factual finding was not against the weight of the evidence –
    the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we vacate this portion of the trial
    court’s order and remand for a new hearing.
    PSP next argues that, “since the Section 303 [Certification] in this case
    was pertaining to M.B., the [trial c]ourt did not have jurisdiction to rule that
    ‘the alleged Section 303 [Certification in] this case was entirely invalid’ for
    any reason.” See PSP’s Brief at 8-12. Again, we note that the trial court did
    not order the record of M.B.’s involuntary commitment under Section 303
    expunged     and    M.B.   has   not   appealed   this   portion   of   the   order.
    Nevertheless, to the extent the trial court rendered a legal conclusion and
    declared, in an Opinion and Order, that the Section 303 Certification was
    - 28 -
    J-S60014-17
    “entirely invalid” and then used this reasoning to expunge M.B.’s involuntary
    commitment under Section 302, we agree that the trial court erred.
    Expunction of involuntary commitment records is governed by 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g).10 In relevant part, this section declares:
    (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).
    (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) and (3).
    ____________________________________________
    10
    In Leach v. Commonwealth, 
    141 A.3d 426
    (Pa. 2016), the Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court held that Act 192 of 2014 was unconstitutional because the
    Act violated the single-subject rule of Article III, Section 3 of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution. We note that Act 192 of 2014 partially amended
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1; however, since the Act is unconstitutional, we have
    not included the amendatory language in our quotation of Section 6111.1.
    - 29 -
    J-S60014-17
    A review of Section 6111.1(g) reveals that the section only authorizes
    the expunction of an involuntary commitment record where the involuntary
    commitment was obtained pursuant to Section 302. Indeed, this Court has
    expressly held:
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g) provides no opportunity to obtain
    expunction of mental health records pursuant to a
    commitment under § 7303. . . . [A trial] court ha[s] no
    jurisdiction under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g) to review [a
    petitioner’s] commitment under § 7303.            [Section
    6111.1(g)] only imbues the lower court with jurisdiction to
    review commitments under § 7302.
    In re Jacobs, 
    15 A.3d 509
    , 511 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also In re Keyes,
    
    83 A.3d 1016
    , 1024 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“we are aware of no authority,
    statutory or decisional, that provides for the expunction of a mental health
    commitment record where the commitment was obtained pursuant to 50
    P.S. § 7303”).
    In the case at bar, the Section 303 Certification declares that a hearing
    occurred on September 25, 2003 and that, at the conclusion of the hearing,
    the mental health review officer concluded that M.B. “is severely mentally
    disabled and in need of” inpatient treatment, at Millcreek, “as a severely
    mentally disabled person pursuant to the provisions of Section 303 of the
    Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976 for a period of 20 days.” Section 303
    Certification, 9/25/03, at 4. The Section 303 Certification was then entered
    on the docket, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, on September
    25, 2003. See 
    id. - 30
    -
    J-S60014-17
    If M.B. wished to obtain judicial review of his involuntary commitment
    pursuant to Section 303, M.B. was required to “petition the court of common
    pleas for review of the certification” – and to do so within 30 days of the
    date the certification was filed. 50 P.S. § 7303(g);11 see In re K.L.S., 
    934 A.2d 1244
    , 1247-1248 (Pa. 2007) (“[i]n proceedings under the [Mental
    Health Procedures Act], the case is [] heard by the [mental health review
    officer], a law-trained, quasi-judicial officer who prepares a certification of
    findings    as   to   the   reasons    that    extended   involuntary   treatment   is
    necessary”) (internal quotations and footnote omitted); 42 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 5571(b) (“[e]xcept as otherwise provided . . . , an appeal from a tribunal
    or other government unit to a court . . . must be commenced within 30 days
    after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken, in the case of an
    ____________________________________________
    11
    50 P.S. § 7303(g) provides, in full:
    (g) Petition to Common Pleas Court.--In all cases in
    which the hearing was conducted by a mental health review
    officer, a person made subject to treatment pursuant to this
    section shall have the right to petition the court of common
    pleas for review of the certification. A hearing shall be held
    within 72 hours after the petition is filed unless a
    continuance is requested by the person's counsel. The
    hearing shall include a review of the certification and such
    evidence as the court may receive or require. If the court
    determines that further involuntary treatment is necessary
    and that the procedures prescribed by this act have been
    followed, it shall deny the petition. Otherwise, the person
    shall be discharged.
    50 P.S. § 7303(g).
    - 31 -
    J-S60014-17
    interlocutory or final order”); Appeal of Chartiers Valley Sch. Dist., 
    462 A.2d 673
    (Pa. 1983) (holding that “the [30] day period set forth in [42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 5571(b)] defines the appeal period of all statutory appeals”).
    M.B. did not file a petition for review of his Section 303 involuntary
    commitment.       Further, since a “[trial] court ha[s] no jurisdiction under 18
    Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g) to review [a petitioner’s] commitment under § 7303,”
    the trial court in this case did not have the power to review M.B.’s
    commitment under Section 303 and declare that the commitment was
    “entirely invalid.” See Trial Court Opinion and Order, 1/30/17, at 4-5. The
    trial court thus erred in doing so.12
    ____________________________________________
    12
    Within M.B.’s brief to this Court, M.B. claims that, since the trial court
    concluded that his Section 303 Certification was “entirely invalid,” he may
    obtain the expunction of this record. See M.B.’s Brief at 12-15. In support
    of this argument, M.B. cites to our Supreme Court’s opinion in Wolfe v.
    Beal, where the Supreme Court held: “a person who has been unlawfully
    committed to a state mental hospital has a right to the destruction of the
    hospital records which were created as a result of the illegal commitment.”
    Wolfe v. Beal, 
    384 A.2d 1187
    , 1189 (Pa. 1978). However, Wolfe was
    decided under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 – not
    the Mental Health Procedures Act of 1976. Moreover, and importantly,
    Wolfe merely described an appropriate remedy where an individual
    succeeds in a procedurally proper challenge to an involuntary mental health
    commitment; the decision did not create an independent action to challenge
    an involuntary commitment and Wolfe did not purport to confer jurisdiction
    upon a court to review a Section 303 Certification in the absence of (and,
    indeed, in contravention of) statutory authority. See also In re Ryan, 
    784 A.2d 803
    (Pa. Super. 2001) (holding that, where the petitioner followed
    the procedural steps that were necessary to obtain judicial review of
    his involuntary commitment under Section 303, both the trial court and
    this Court were permitted to review the Section 303 Certification).
    - 32 -
    J-S60014-17
    In its final claim on appeal, PSP argues that the trial court erred when
    it expunged the record of M.B.’s involuntary commitment under Section 302,
    as the trial court “appl[ied] the incorrect standard of review.” PSP’s Brief at
    4. We agree. Thus, we vacate this portion of the trial court’s order.
    As   noted,   Section   6111.1(g)(2)    allows   an   individual   who   was
    involuntarily committed under Section 302 to petition the trial court “to
    review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the commitment was
    based.”      18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g)(2).       Upon review, if the trial 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.” 
    Id. The trial
    court’s final order in this case was entered on January 30,
    2017.     On January 19, 2017 – which was prior to the entry of the trial
    court’s final order – the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided In re Vencil,
    
    152 A.3d 235
    (Pa. 2017). The Supreme Court held:
    the plain language of section 6111.1(g)(2) requires a court
    of common pleas to review [] 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.
    
    Id. at 237.
    We note that, prior to Vencil, this Court held that PSP was required to
    prove the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the involuntary commitment
    - 33 -
    J-S60014-17
    by “clear and convincing evidence.”            See In re Vencil, 
    120 A.3d 1028
    ,
    1036-1038 (Pa. Super. 2015), vacated by In re Vencil, 
    152 A.3d 235
    (Pa.
    2017) (Superior Court explaining that Section 6111.1(g)(2) requires a de
    novo hearing, where clear and convincing evidence must be presented to
    support the commitment).           The Supreme Court’s decision in Vencil thus
    lowered the required standard of proof to support Section 302 commitments
    from the “clear and convincing evidence” standard to the “preponderance of
    the evidence” standard.13
    In the case at bar, the trial court’s January 30, 2017 order expunged
    the record of M.B.’s Section 302 commitment. In its accompanying opinion,
    the trial court explained that PSP “bore the burden of establishing via clear
    and convincing evidence that M.B.’s commitment was sufficient and
    complied with the Mental Health Procedures Act.”          Trial Court Opinion and
    Order, 1/30/17, at 2.         As explained above, this statement of the law is
    incorrect and indicates that the trial court erroneously held PSP to a higher
    standard of proof than the law mandates. We are thus required to vacate
    the portion of the trial court’s order that expunged the record of M.B.’s
    Section 302 commitment.14,        15
    ____________________________________________
    13
    Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Vencil while the current
    case was pending before the trial court, the trial court was required to apply
    Vencil to the case at bar.
    14
    If, on remand and under prevailing case law, the trial court determines
    that M.B. was involuntarily committed under Section 303, the trial court may
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    - 34 -
    J-S60014-17
    PSP’s Motion to Append Rule 1925(b) Statement granted.           Order
    vacated in part.16 Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    not expunge the record of M.B.’s Section 302 commitment. See In re
    
    Jacobs, 15 A.3d at 511
    (the appellant was involuntarily committed under
    Sections 302 and 303 and requested that the trial court expunge the record
    of his involuntary commitments; this Court held that the trial court did not
    have jurisdiction to review the Section 303 commitment and that, with
    respect to his Section 302 commitment, the appellant’s claim was “moot
    because even if he is entitled to expunction under § 7302, expunction
    cannot go forward because appellant was also involuntarily committed under
    § 7303”).
    15
    Within M.B.’s brief to this Court, M.B. claims that the records of his
    involuntary commitments under Sections 302 and 303 must be expunged
    because Section 302 is facially unconstitutional and Section 303 is
    unconstitutional as applied to him. Specifically, M.B. contends that Section
    302 facially violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution’s
    due process clause, as it allows “an involuntary commitment . . . in the
    absence of all tenants of due process.” M.B.’s Brief at 21. Likewise, M.B.
    claims that “Section 303 is facially unconstitutional, as applied in this
    matter, since [M.B.] was never provided a hearing or counsel and any
    Section 303 commitment was not perfected in compliance with the [Mental
    Health Procedures Act] or its implementing regulations.” 
    Id. at 23.
    M.B.’s
    first claim (that Section 302 is facially unconstitutional under the due
    process clause) fails, as this Court has already held that Section 302 is
    “constitutionally sound in light of the therapeutic/non-punitive intent and
    short duration of the Section 302 procedures.” In re F.C., III, 
    966 A.2d 1131
    , 1136-1137 (Pa. Super. 2009), affirmed, 
    2 A.3d 1201
    (Pa. 2010).
    M.B.’s second claim (that Section 303 is unconstitutional as applied to him)
    is waived, as M.B. was the petitioner in this case and he never raised the
    claim in his original petition filed before the trial court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
    (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for
    the first time on appeal”).
    16
    We note that PSP does not claim that the trial court erred when it granted
    M.B. state relief from his firearms disability, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 6105(f). PSP’s Brief at 4; see also PSP’s Brief at 12 n.4.
    - 35 -
    J-S60014-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/22/2018
    - 36 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 366 WDA 2017

Filed Date: 1/22/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/22/2018