Opinion
C. A. 231-04257
02-14-2024
STATE OF DELAWARE, Petitioner, v. QUINCY QUIGLEY,[1] Respondent.
Submitted: December 20 2023
ORDER
Reneta L. Green-Streett, Judge
Now, this 14th day of February, 2024, upon a de novo consideration of the record in this case, it is hereby ordered that Respondent's appeal is DENIED for the following reasons:
1. On December 1, 2023, Respondent was evaluated at Dover Behavioral Health following an emergency detention. The State subsequently filed a complaint under 16 Del. C. Ch. 50, seeking a probable cause hearing to determine if Respondent required involuntary commitment. This Court held a Probable Cause hearing by Zoom on December 8, 2023.
2. Following the Probable Cause hearing, a Superior Court Commissioner issued an order (the "Order") finding that probable cause existed to treat Respondent involuntarily. The Commissioner scheduled an Involuntary Commitment hearing for December 15, 2023. Dover Behavioral Health discharged Respondent on December 14, 2023, before the Involuntary Commitment hearing could occur.
3. Respondent, through appointed counsel, appealed the Order. Respondent objected to all of the Commissioner's findings. Despite her discharge from Dover Behavioral Health and release from involuntary commitment, Respondent contends her appeal should not be dismissed as moot, as negative collateral consequences inure against her.
4. Appointed counsel for Respondent filed a "Motion for Withdrawal" on December 21, 2023. Appointed counsel noted that Respondent is a member of the Delaware Bar. Respondent opted to represent herself at the Probable Cause hearing: she cross examined Petitioner's witnesses, direct examined her own witnesses, and testified on her own behalf. Appointed counsel helped Respondent preserve her right to appeal, but now "has a fundamental disagreement with the direction the client wishes to pursue."
Motion for Withdrawal at 3.
5. Respondent cites 11 Del. C. § 1448(a) as the sole ongoing effect stemming from the Probable Cause hearing. 11 Del. C. § 1448(a)(2)(a) prohibits any person who has been involuntarily committed, under 16 Del. C. Chapter 50, from "purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a deadly weapon or ammunition for a firearm within the State." A person subject to the restriction of 11 Del. C. § 1448(a)(2)(a) may only have her firearm rights restored by petitioning for relief from the Relief from Disabilities Board under 11 Del. C. § 1448A(1).
6. The State contends that Respondent's discharge from involuntary commitment renders her appeal moot. In response to Respondent's argument that she continues to experience ongoing effects of the Order, the State posits that Respondent's prohibition from owning or purchasing firearms stems from a March 2, 2023 order ("March Order") by a different Commissioner of this Court. The State asserts that Respondent suffers no ongoing effects from the Order, as the March Order is now final and has the same effect of restricting Respondent's firearm rights.
See Radulski for Taylor v. Delaware State Hosp. for & on Behalf of Div. of Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Mental Health, of Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 541 A.2d 562, 563 (Del. 1988) ("Without reaching the merits of the appeal ... this Court finds that an appeal of that order is moot because the order, by its original terms, has expired.").
See State v. Quigley, Del. Super., ID No. 23104257, Howard, A (Mar. 2, 2022) (ORDER).
7. A careful review of the March Order and 11 Del. C. § 1448(a)(2)(a) confirms that the March Order continues to restrict Respondent's firearm rights. Even if the Court vacated the Order, Respondent would still be required to proceed through the process outlined by 11 Del. C. § 1448A(1) to have her firearm rights restored. Respondent has not identified any other ongoing effects or collateral consequences from the Order.
8. "An appeal is moot if the issue in dispute is no longer amenable to a judicial resolution[,] or if a party has been divested of standing." Respondent asks this Court to vacate the Order, so that her right to possess firearms may be restored to her. Respondent's rights, however, were already restricted by the March Order, an order which this Court will not vacate. Therefore, this Court cannot provide Respondent with the relief she seeks.
Smith v. State, 198 A.3d 176, 176 (Del. 2018).
9. As the Court cannot provide Respondent a remedy that restores her firearm rights, and because Respondent is no longer involuntarily committed under the Order, the Court finds Respondent's appeal moot. The Court need not address any other standing issues implicated by Respondent's appeal. Similarly, the Court need not examine the findings of fact relied upon by the Commissioner that form the basis of the Order.
9. Therefore, Respondent's appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. Counsel's Motion to Withdraw is MOOT. To the extent that Respondent appeals this Order, appointed counsel maintains no continuing obligation to represent Respondent on that appeal given Respondent's status as a member in good standing of the Delaware Bar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.