Opinion
J-S85009-16 No. 1162 EDA 2016
01-09-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CORY J. WILLIS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order March 16, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000602-2006 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Cory J. Willis, appeals from the order of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denying his application to restore his firearm rights. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On June 19, 2007, Willis pleaded guilty to a second offense, DUI, highest rate of alcohol, as a misdemeanor of the first degree. On that same date, Willis was sentenced to intermediate punishment for a period of 1 year, 90 days of which was to be spent under house arrest.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c). Under the law in effect at the time of Willis's guilty plea, a person convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree was subject to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 5 years. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 106(b)(6).
On January 17, 2015, Willis attempted to purchase a firearm at a gun show in Matamoras, Pike County, Pennsylvania. Due to his DUI conviction, he was denied permission to purchase the gun. An appeal of that denial is current pending before the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office.
On September 29, 2015, Willis filed a Petition for Restoration of Firearm Rights under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.1. The trial court held a hearing on Willis's Petition. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed Willis's Petition due to lack of jurisdiction. This timely appeal follows.
On appeal, Willis raises two issues. First, Willis argues that the trial court should have found that the sentencing limits set forth in Commonwealth v. Musau , 69 A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2013), applied retroactively to Willis's second DUI conviction. See Appellant's Brief, at 3. Therefore, Willis argues, because the sentencing limit set forth in Musau would not make him a "disabled person" under federal law, the trial court should have found that he is a person allowed to possess a firearm. Id. at 9. Alternatively, if Willis was properly deemed a "disabled person" under federal law, Willis argues that the trial court erred in determining that Willis was not entitled to have his firearm rights restored under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.1. See id. at 10.
Willis's arguments challenge the trial courts interpretation of case law as well as its statutory interpretation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101 et seq. These arguments raise questions of law over which our standard of review is de novo and out scope of review is plenary. See J.C.B. v. Pa. State Police , 35 A.3d 792, 794 (Pa. Super. 2012).
We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the thorough opinion of the Honorable Stephen M. Higgins. The trial court's opinion comprehensively disposes of Willis's issues on appeal, with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Therefore, we will affirm based upon that opinion. See Trial Court's Opinion, dated 3/16/16.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/9/2017
Image materials not available for display.