In re P.M.

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. J.M. (In re J.M.)

    849 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2024)

    allow for expungement based upon purported due process violations or procedural irregularities related to a 302 commitment. See In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 458 (Pa. Super. 2020) (rejecting petitioner's due process claim as a means to expunge his section 302 commitment). As our Supreme Court observed,

  2. In re M.P.B.

    762 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2024)

    ing the foregoing statement, have concluded that because "Section 6111.1(g)(2) merely allows a person who is precluded from possessing or owning firearms due to a prior involuntary mental health commitment to seek to expunge the record of that commitment," it does "not provide a basis to challenge the commitment itself." Gentis v. Commonwealth, 2021 WL 4704155 *1, *6 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2021) (non-precedential decision) (declining to consider the appellant's claim that his 302 commitment was invalid because he was not examined within two hours of his arrival at the hospital); see also In re. J.M.Y., 218 A.3d 404, 416 (Pa. 2019) (stating that, in Vencil, supra, our Supreme Court "interpreted the absence from the MHPA of an appeals process for 302 commitments as a deliberate legislative choice, inasmuch as the General Assembly could have supplied one if it chose to") (citation omitted); In re. P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 457-458 (Pa. Super. 2020) (declining to consider the appellant's due process challenge to his 302 commitment); In re. B.F., 2022 WL 2348910 *1, *4 (Pa. Super. June 29, 2022) (non-precedential decision) (explaining that "Section 6111.1(g)(2) does not allow expungement based on alleged procedural irregularities" and declining to consider the appellant's claim that his 302 commitment was invalid because he was not examined within two hours of his arrival at the hospital).

  3. In re V.A.H.

    2022 Pa. Super. 214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022)

    This Court has concluded that "an expungement petition under [Section] 6111.1(g)(2) is a civil action that is subject to a six-year statute of limitation pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5527(b)." In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 458 (Pa.Super. 2020) (emphasis added); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5527(b) ("Any civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter or excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 ... must be commenced within six years.").

  4. In re C.R.J.

    1387 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2022)

    This Court has concluded that "an expungement petition under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2) is a civil action that is subject to a six-year statute of limitation pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527(b)." In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 458 (Pa.Super. 2020); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527(b) ("Any civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter or excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 . . . must be commenced within six years.").

  5. Genits v. Commonwealth

    191 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 8, 2021)

    Our Supreme Court has "interpreted the absence from the MHPA of an appeals process for 302 commitments as a deliberate legislative choice, inasmuch as the General Assembly could have supplied one if it chose to." In re J.M.Y., 218 A.3d 404, 416 (Pa. 2019), citing Vencil, 152 A.3d at 243-45; see also In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 457- 58 (Pa. Super. 2020) (declining to consider a Section 302 due process claim raised in a Section 6111.1(g)(2) review); accord In re J.M.Y., 218 A.3d at 416-18 (holding that Section 6111.1(g)(2) "by its terms, empowers a court to entertain a petition testing the sufficiency of the evidence for a Section 302 commitment; however, it does not authorize a court to consider whether a certification for involuntary mental health treatment pursuant to Section 303 was validly entered" and thus, refusing to consider due process claim raised in a Section 6111.1(g)(2) review). Thus, Section 6111.1(g)(2) merely allows a person who is precluded from possessing or owning firearms due to a prior involuntary mental health commitment to seek to expunge the record of that commitment.

  6. Commonwealth v. Troyer

    1080 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021)

    It is well-settled that we "review the trial court's denial of a motion for expunction for an abuse of its discretion." In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 456 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation and brackets omitted). In Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to have his arrest record expunged where the charges had been nolprossed.

  7. Genits v. Commonwealth

    191 EDA 2021 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Oct. 8, 2021)

    Our Supreme Court has "interpreted the absence from the MHPA of an appeals process for 302 commitments as a deliberate legislative choice, inasmuch as the General Assembly could have supplied one if it chose to." In re J.M.Y., 218 A.3d 404, 416 (Pa. 2019), citing Vencil, 152 A.3d at 243-45; see also In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 457- 58 (Pa. Super. 2020) (declining to consider a Section 302 due process claim raised in a Section 6111.1(g)(2) review); accord In re J.M.Y., 218 A.3d at 416-18 (holding that Section 6111.1(g)(2) "by its terms, empowers a court to entertain a petition testing the sufficiency of the evidence for a Section 302 commitment; however, it does not authorize a court to consider whether a certification for involuntary mental health treatment pursuant to Section 303 was validly entered" and thus, refusing to consider due process claim raised in a Section 6111.1(g)(2) review). Thus, Section 6111.1(g)(2) merely allows a person who is precluded from possessing or owning firearms due to a prior involuntary mental health commitment to seek to expunge the record of that commitment.

  8. Commonwealth v. Troyer

    1080 WDA 2020 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021)

    It is well-settled that we "review the trial court's denial of a motion for expunction for an abuse of its discretion." In re P.M., 230 A.3d 454, 456 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation and brackets omitted). In Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to have his arrest record expunged where the charges had been nolprossed.