Com. v. Murphy, C.

J-S72007-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CRAIG D. MURPHY,
Appellant No. 113 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered November 25, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-MD-0005804-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2014
Appellant, Craig D. Murphy, appeals from the order denying his
Application for Relief from Disabilities Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d)
(hereinafter “Restoration Petition”). Appellant argues that he was entitled to
relief under Section 6105(d), and that the denial of his Restoration Petition
violated state and federal law and infringed upon several of his state and
federal constitutional rights. After careful review, we affirm.
Appellant filed his Restoration Petition on November 6, 2013, and the
trial court promptly held a hearing to consider it on November 25, 2013.
Following that hearing, Appellant’s Restoration Petition was denied.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on December 24, 2013. The trial
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S72007-14
court appointed counsel to represent Appellant for his appeal, however,
Appellant’s subsequent request to proceed pro se on appeal was granted on
June 9, 2014. Appellant then filed a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on
July 9, 2014. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on July 18,
2014.
Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
I. Whether the lower court erred in denying the Appellant's
Application for Relief from Disabilit[i]es [p]ursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 6105(d)[,] where … Appellant's right to appeal any underlying
convictions has expired pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d)(1)?
II. Whether the lower court order violated the Appellant's
second (2nd), Tenth [(10th),] and Fourteenth (14th) amendment
[r]ights (equal protection and due process rights) of the U.S.
Constitution …, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act § 42 U.S.C. §
2000d-4a(1)(A)(B), and Article 1 § 21 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution without a compelling government interest?
III. Whether the Appellant has state or federal firearm[]s
restriction[s] or disabilities flowing from prior Pennsylvania State
convictions if applicable being that the Appellant's convicting
jurisdiction is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A)(B) and such convictions if any were
expunged and were not punishable by a term exceeding one
year?
[IV]. Whether the lower court had the authority and ability to
restore … Appellant's civil rights to firearms as this
Commonwealth is … Appellant's convicting jurisdiction and …
Appellant has not been convicted of any federal offenses and …
Appellant's core civil rights though irrelevant were substantially
restored?
[V]. Whether the Appellant's prior convictions if any are per se
violations pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade
practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to
the regulation of business practices pursuant to state or federal
law and are pari materia to criminal violations of Pennsylvania
State Law?
-2-
J-S72007-14
Appellant’s Brief at 10-11.
Appellant’s claims are confusingly stated; however, after reviewing
Appellant’s entire brief, it is apparent that the questions presented for our
review are aptly distilled as follows:
1) Did the trial court err when it determined that Appellant was
not eligible for relief under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d)?
2) Has Appellant been denied his rights under the 2nd, 10th, and
14th amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1 §
21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, state and federal law,
including the Civil Rights Restoration Act, because no other
avenue exists for Appellant to seek restoration of his right to
possess a firearm?
We begin by addressing the first of the restated claims, wherein
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his Restoration Petition under
Section 6105(d). On May 2, 2005, Appellant pled guilty to, inter alia,
tampering with records or identification, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4104, and theft of
immovable property, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(b), both graded as first degree
misdemeanors. Pennsylvania law provides that “[a] crime is a misdemeanor
of the first degree if it is so designated in this title or if a person convicted
thereof may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the maximum of
which is not more than five years.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 106(b)(6).
Although Pennsylvania law does not impose any firearms restriction for
these convictions, federal law does:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year;
-3-
J-S72007-14
…
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or
to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Thus, because Appellant’s record tampering and theft
convictions were crimes “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year,” he was subjected to the firearms disability imposed by 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g).
Although 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) provides a means to remove the disability
imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), there is apparently no practical way to seek
relief under Section 925(c) at this time due to budget constraints imposed
upon the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives division of the
Department of Justice.1 Consequently, Appellant attempted to seek relief in
____________________________________________
1
Federal law provides that:
(c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping,
transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make
application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities
imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt,
transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms,
and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established
to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability,
and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the
applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public
safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary
to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief
from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a
petition with the United States district court for the district in
which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court
may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to
do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S72007-14
state court under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d). Section 6105(d) provides as
follows:
(d) Exemption.--A person who has been convicted of a crime
specified in subsection (a) or (b) or a person whose conduct
meets the criteria in subsection (c)(1), (2), (5), (7) or (9) may
make application to the court of common pleas of the county
where the principal residence of the applicant is situated for
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed
collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes
application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this
chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further
operations under his license pending final action on an
application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the
Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this
section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice
of such action, together with the reasons therefor.
18 U.S.C. § 925(c). However, the United States Justice Department
provides the following response to those seeking restoration of federally
imposed firearms disabilities:
Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA),
convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from
possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney
General with the authority to grant relief from this disability
where the Attorney General determines that the person is not
likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and
granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The
Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.
Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has
prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon
applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted
by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current
ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for
relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#firearms-relief.
-5-
J-S72007-14
relief from the disability imposed by this section upon the
possession, transfer or control of a firearm. The court shall grant
such relief if it determines that any of the following apply:
(1) The conviction has been vacated under circumstances
where all appeals have been exhausted or where the right
to appeal has expired.
(2) The conviction has been the subject of a full pardon by
the Governor.
(3) Each of the following conditions is met:
(i) The Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States has relieved the applicant of an applicable
disability imposed by Federal law upon the
possession, ownership or control of a firearm as a
result of the applicant's prior conviction, except that
the court may waive this condition if the court
determines that the Congress of the United States
has not appropriated sufficient funds to enable the
Secretary of the Treasury to grant relief to applicants
eligible for the relief.
(ii) A period of ten years, not including any time
spent in incarceration, has elapsed since the most
recent conviction of the applicant of a crime
enumerated in subsection (b), a felony violation of
The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
Cosmetic Act or the offense which resulted in the
prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d).
The trial court determined that Appellant was not eligible to apply for
relief under Section 6105(d). To be eligible to relief under Section 6105(d),
one must have been “convicted of a crime specified in subsection (a) or
(b)[,]” and/or “meet[] the criteria in subsection (c)(1), (2), (5), (7) or
(9)[.]” Id. Section 6105(b) provides a list of enumerated crimes, none of
-6-
J-S72007-14
which are crimes that triggered Appellant’s federal firearms disability.2
Section 6105(a) specifies that the firearms disability imposed by Section
6105(a) also applies to additional persons listed in Section 6105(c). None of
the provisions of Section 6105(c) apply to Appellant or the offenses which
triggered his federally imposed firearms disability. Accordingly, we agree
with the trial court that Appellant is not in the class of persons who may
seek relief under Section 6105(d).
Appellant argues that he is entitled to relief under Section 6105(d)
because his right to appeal his disabling convictions has expired. He reaches
this conclusion by reading certain parts of Section 6105(d) without reference
to any other parts of that provision, and by misconstruing an awkwardly
worded phrase therein. Appellant focuses his argument on this snapshot of
Section 6105(d):
The court shall grant such relief if it determines that any of the
following apply:
(1) The conviction has been vacated under circumstances
where all appeals have been exhausted or where the right
to appeal has expired.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(d).
In doing so, Appellant ignores the preceding language, which defines
the class of individuals who may seek relief from firearms disabilities under
____________________________________________
2
Although 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921 appears in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b), only a
“second felony offense” under that provision is considered an enumerated
offense that triggers the firearms ban contained in Section 6105(a)(1).
-7-
J-S72007-14
Section 6105(d). As noted above, Appellant does not fall within that class,
and is therefore not eligible for relief under Section 6105(d). Furthermore,
Appellant misconstrues Section 6105(d)(1) when he claims that the trial
court shall grant relief when the right to appeal from the disabling
convictions has expired. Section 6105(d)(1) does not provide such broad
relief. Instead, it provides relief when “[t]he conviction has been vacated[,]”
but not until “all appeals have been exhausted or where the right to appeal
has expired.” Thus, the prevailing party in the order vacating the disabling
conviction may not seek restoration under Section 6105(d) until the
Commonwealth has had the opportunity to appeal the vacating order.
Appellant’s alternative interpretation of the statute is absurd, providing
identical relief where 1) a conviction has been vacated and the appeals from
the vacating order have been exhausted; and 2) where the conviction has
not been vacated and no appeal is taken. The clear intent of Section
6105(d) is to provide relief when a disabling offense has been vacated. We
conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err when it denied Appellant’s
Restoration Petition.
Appellant’s remaining claims, collectively restated above, assert the
violation of multiple state and federal constitutional rights, as well as state
and federal law, as a result of the trial court’s denial of his Restoration
Petition. Our review of Appellant’s initial petition, and the hearing conducted
on November 25, 2013, reveals that Appellant did not raise any of these
claims in the trial court. See Restoration Petition, 11/16/13, ¶¶ 1-4; and
-8-
J-S72007-14
see N.T., 11/25/13, 2-7. Instead, Appellant raised these claims for the first
time in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement, 7/9/14, at 2 (unnumbered). Accordingly, these claims have been
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived
and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).3
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2014
____________________________________________
3
We, like Appellant, are troubled that the federal government has defunded
the only available remedy for relief from firearms disabilities imposed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). However, Appellant’s right to possess a
firearm has not been curtailed by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 and, thus, it is not at all
surprising, nor does it trouble us, that Section 6105 does not provide a
remedy for this injustice.
-9-