209 A.3d 1155
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- In June 2017 Michael Sama applied for a Pennsylvania license to carry; the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) denied the application after a PICS report showed a 1998 Delaware conviction for delivery of a Schedule II narcotic.
- Sama had received a full gubernatorial pardon from Delaware on August 11, 2014; the parties stipulated the pardon contained no restriction on firearm possession or transport.
- Sama appealed PSP’s denial to the Office of Attorney General (OAG); an ALJ held a hearing, concluded the Delaware pardon removed firearms disabilities, and ordered PSP to amend Sama’s PICS record.
- PSP petitioned for review in Commonwealth Court, arguing Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) requires a court of common pleas order (per 18 Pa. C.S. §§6105(d)(2), 6123) to relieve firearm disability even after a pardon.
- Sama sought attorney fees under CHRIA and related precedent for maintaining an incorrect criminal history record.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed OAG’s order (pardon removed the conviction from UFA’s definition of “conviction” when the pardoning jurisdiction treats it as such) and denied Sama’s fee request without prejudice (fees must be pursued via a CHRIA civil action).
Issues
| Issue | Sama's Argument | PSP's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a full out-of-state gubernatorial pardon that, under the pardoning state law, removes firearm disability renders the conviction not a “conviction” under UFA so PSP must clear firearm prohibitions | The pardon means the offense is no longer a “conviction” under 18 Pa. C.S. §6102, so UFA disabilities do not apply and no court petition is required | Even after a pardon, UFA requires a court of common pleas application for relief from firearm disability (Sections 6105(d)(2) and 6123); a pardon alone does not lift the disability | Affirmed ALJ: where the convicting jurisdiction treats the conviction as no longer a “conviction” for firearms disability, PSP must treat it the same and remove the disability from records (McCaffrey controlling) |
| Whether Sama is entitled to attorney fees and costs based on PSP’s maintenance of an incorrect record under CHRIA | Sama sought fees under CHRIA and related precedent because PSP maintained an incorrect record causing denial of rights | PSP argued relief under UFA was the proper route; CHRIA remedies require a separate civil action | Denied without prejudice: CHRIA-based fees/costs require initiating a civil action in proper jurisdiction; administrative UFA review does not itself award CHRIA fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. McCaffrey, 816 A.2d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (holding that where the convicting jurisdiction treats a conviction as not a “conviction” for firearms disability, PSP must follow that determination)
- Hunt v. Pennsylvania State Police, 983 A.2d 627 (Pa.) (CHRIA permits recovery of damages and reasonable litigation costs where an individual is aggrieved by maintenance of incorrect criminal records)
- Haron v. Pennsylvania State Police, 171 A.3d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (maintenance of incorrect criminal records causing wrongful denial of firearm rights constitutes aggrievement under CHRIA and may support fees/costs)