In Re: N.R., Appeal of N.R. and D.R.
In Re: N.R., Appeal of N.R. and D.R. No. 976 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2009 N.R. was involuntarily committed under 50 P.S. § 7302 (section 302) and, after an informal hearing with counsel present, his commitment was extended under § 7303 (section 303) for continued treatment.
- The mental health review officer certified that N.R. was severely mentally disabled and informed him of his right to petition the court of common pleas for review of the § 303 certification; N.R. did not file a petition within the certification period.
- N.R. was released (within the 20‑day extension) and, three years later (Feb. 1, 2013), filed to vacate/expunge his involuntary commitment records and to restore firearm rights under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2) and § 6105(f)(1).
- The trial court reinstated N.R.’s firearm rights under § 6105(f)(1) but denied expungement under § 6111.1(g)(2); N.R. appealed.
- Appellants also moved to strike a supplemental reproduced record submitted by the Pennsylvania State Police; the Superior Court found the documents were part of the certified record and denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.R. was entitled to expungement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g) | N.R. argued public policy and due process supported expungement despite the § 303 certification and his failure to seek timely review | Appellee argued § 6111.1(g) permits expungement only for § 302 commitments and not for § 303 certifications; further, N.R. failed to timely petition for review | Denied — § 6111.1(g) applies only to § 302 commitments; no expunction for § 303 certification, and N.R. failed to timely seek judicial review within the applicable appeal period |
| Whether failure to timely seek review of the § 303 certification was excused by N.R.’s mental state | N.R. suggested his mental condition precluded timely petitioning | Appellee contended no timely petition was filed and no adequate, developed argument excusing the delay was shown | Denied — argument underdeveloped and N.R. waited three years without alleging timely action once competent |
| Whether the § 303 proceeding complied with MHPA due process requirements | N.R. argued process may have been defective (implied) | Appellee showed N.R. had counsel, an informal hearing, findings by the review officer, and was informed of rights | Held — record shows § 303 procedures were followed and certification met statutory contents |
| Whether the supplemental reproduced record (SRR) should be stricken | Appellants argued SRR was improper and contained materials not before the trial court | Appellee argued the SRR exhibits were identified and admitted at the hearings and are in the certified record | Denied — documents are part of the certified record and thus considered by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Keyes, 83 A.3d 1016 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for expunction is abuse of discretion)
- In re Jacobs, 15 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2011) (§ 6111.1(g) does not permit expunction of § 303 commitments and § 302 expunction is barred if petitioner also had § 303 commitment)
- In re Ryan, 784 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. 2001) (due process violations in MHPA proceedings can warrant vacatur and expungement)
- In re K.L.S., 934 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 2007) (mental health review officer is a law‑trained, quasi‑judicial officer; § 7303(d) certification requirements explained)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101 (Pa. 1998) (appellate review limited to matters contained in the certified record)