J-A24005-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
J.A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, AND : No. 1289 EDA 2024 KEVIN R. STEELE :
Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-00587
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KING, J., and LANE, J. MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED JANUARY 29, 2025
J.A. appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, denying his petition for restoration of firearms rights filed pursuant to section 6105(f)(1) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6128. After our review, we affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable Richard P. Haaz.
Pursuant to sections 302 and 303 of the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), 50 P.S. §§ 7302, 7303, J.A. had been involuntarily committed on
February 20, 2021 and February 25, 2021, respectively.1 Consequently, J.A. ____________________________________________
1 J.A. was seventeen years old when his parents, both healthcare professionals, [] filed a petition for involuntary commitment of their son, fearing for his and their own safety. J.A.’s father, a psychiatrist, reported that J.A.’s “paranoia, grandiosity, and dysregulated mood has severely escalated over the past 30 days—police had to be called three times to calm him and (Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A24005-24
was subject to state and federal firearm restrictions. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c)(4);2 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).3 ____________________________________________
protect us[;] CYS and Mobile Crisis have also come to our home several times over [the] past 30 days[.]” Application for Involuntary Emergency Examination and Treatment (Section 302 Petition), 2/20/21. J.A.’s father and mother also reported that J.A. had made verbal threats toward them, that J.A. believed they were stealing his mail, and that J.A. believed his mother was trying to poison him. Id. J.A. was treated at Horsham Clinic for two days. After examination and evaluation, James Yi, M.D., a board-certified psychiatrist, submitted a request that the court certify J.A. for extended section 303 involuntary treatment pursuant to section 7303 of the MHPA. See J.A. v. Montgomery County, et al., 1362 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed April 11, 2023) (unpublished memorandum decision), appeal denied 309 A.3d 696 (Pa. Dec. 20, 2023).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c) provides:
Other persons.--In addition to any person who has been convicted of any offense listed under subsection (b), the following persons shall be subject to the prohibition of subsection (a):
***
(4) A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L. 817, No. 143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act. This paragraph shall not apply to any proceeding under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act unless the examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(c)(4). 3 Federal firearm restrictions, pursuant to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968,
18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., apply to one “who has been . . . committed to a mental institution[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).
-2-
J-A24005-24
On January 10, 2024, J.A. filed a petition seeking restoration of his firearm rights pursuant to section 6105(f)(1) of the UFA. Judge Haaz held a hearing on April 5, 2024. On April 8, 2024, Judge Haaz denied J.A.’s petition. See Order, 4/8/24. J.A. filed a timely appeal. Both Judge Haaz and J.A. have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J.A. raises two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court capriciously rejected the psychologist’s assessment and conclusions where the basis of the rejection is [J.A.’s] “personal motive” for seeking the restoration of his rights.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in second- guessing the merits of the methodology that [Robert] Tanenbaum[, Ph,D.], employ[ed] in reaching his expert conclusions.
Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
Section 6105(f)(1) of the Crimes Code states: “Upon application to the court of common pleas under this subsection by an applicant subject to the prohibitions under subsection (c)(4), the court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate if the court determines that the applicant may possess a firearm without risk to the applicant or any other person.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1). This Court has stated that section 6105(f)(1) “plainly leaves the decision of whether to restore the right to possess a firearm within the discretion of the trial court.” E.G.G. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 219 A.3d 679, 683 (Pa. Super. 2019). An abuse of discretion “is not merely an error in judgment. . . . [It] occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
-3-
J-A24005-24
judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record.” Id. Moreover, “it is well-settled that a [ ] finder of fact is free to believe all, part or none of a witness’ testimony” and therefore may “discount[ ] the testimony of Appellant’s psychiatric expert.” Id.
At the hearing, the court heard testimony from J.A. and J.A.’s expert, Dr. Tanenbaum, a licensed clinical psychologist. Doctor Tanenbaum evaluated J.A. prior to the hearing and testified in support of J.A.’s request. The trial court found neither Dr. Tanenbaum nor J.A. credible and, therefore, determined that J.A. did not meet his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was no longer a threat to himself or others.
The trial court noted that Dr. Tanenbaum’s report was “incomplete,” devoted entirely to the events precipitating the involuntary commitment; that Dr. Tanenbaum did not contact either J.A.’s treating psychiatrist or J.A.’s parents; and that his assessment and conclusions were “unduly driven by [J.A.’s] personal motive to exonerate himself to his parents.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/24, at 6. The court also found J.A.’s credibility compromised by a false statement in his petition—the production of a transcript from Vanderbilt University, which he never attended—and his “deceptions to his lawyer and psychologist about the accuracy of his educational history.” Id. at 7. Additionally, the court found concerning the fact that J.A. did not offer
-4-
J-A24005-24
the testimony of his treating psychiatrist. The court ultimately found both J.A. and Dr. Tanenbaum unworthy of belief.
As the factfinder, the trial court had the right to assess the witnesses’ credibility. See J.C.B. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 35 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding “the trial court, as the fact finder, acted within its discretion in[,]” inter alia, “discounting the testimony of Appellant’s psychiatric expert.”). As an appellate court, we must pay proper deference to this credibility determination.
After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we conclude that Judge Haaz did not abuse his discretion in determining that J.A. did not meet his burden. See Hirsch v. EPL Technologies, Inc., 910 A.2d 84, 88 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[a]s long as sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the finding found by the trial court, as factfinder, we are precluded from overturning that finding and must affirm, thereby paying the proper deference due to the factfinder who heard the witnesses testify and was in the sole position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility”).
In short, based upon the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court “ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” E.G.G., 219 A.3d at 684. We decline to disturb the trial court’s order.
-5-
J-A24005-24
We rely on Judge Haaz’s opinion to affirm the order denying J.A.’s petition for restoration of firearm rights, and we direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Order affirmed. Date: 1/29/2025
-6-
Circulated 01/07/2025 03:17 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION
J, ` . 4' A- NO. 2024-00587
vs. 1289 EDA 2024
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE and MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
HAAZ, J. MAY 23, 2024
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant, J , _k (`'_ ______=s>"), appeals this court's Order dated April 8, 2024,
which denied his Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights Pursuant to I8 Pa.C.S.A. 6105(f)(1).
A: filed aPetition for Restoration of Firearms Rights on January 10, 2024 against the Pennsylvania State Police and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office. Neither Defendant filed awritten response to the petition. , petition alleged, inter alia, that his involuntary commitment to amental institution for inpatient care and treatment in 2021 renders him currently disabled from possessing afirearm pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6105(c)(4) and 18 U.S.C. Section 922. 1 The petition further avers that A.___ iis not currently arisk to others if he were to own and possess firearms.2 1 AE , etition, paragraph 18. 2 A `.:, , hpetition, paragraphs 19, 20.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on A' ' spetition on April 5, 2024. On April 8, 2024, the court entered an Order denying A_'` --- is petition. A. _.ifiled aNotice of Appeal on April 30, 2024. The court filed an Order dated April 30, 2024 directing A: file aConcise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the P.R.App.P. A• - . , filed aConcise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal raising fourteen grounds of error, 3
II. THE HEARING
A• • ' counsel acknowledged at the outset of the hearing that the only issue before the court is "whether we can satisfy our burden of proof that (Al , d is not adanger to himself or to others today, not three-and-a-half years ago:' (N.T. 14)
R _. A-_ ,, testified he was born on August 2003 and attends class at Thomas Jefferson University. He maintains agrade point average of 3.94. He was president of TJU's debating society and was aregional debating champion in high school. He plays about 100 chess games per week. He has no desire to obtain afirearm and seeks acourt Order stating he is not a danger to himself or others. (N.T. 29) He is afull time student and is not employed. He testified he has avery good support system. (N.T. 49)
Al irecalled he was diagnosed as having abrief psychotic disorder and delusional disorder during his involuntary commitment in 2021. (N.T. 33) After his discharge from the Horsham Clinic in 2021, he received follow-up advice from his father who is apsychiatrist. (N.T. 39) A, anow sees Dr. Steven Weinstein, apsychiatrist, two to three times ayear on an as needed basis. (N.T. 75) Dr. Weinstein has not rendered adiagnosis and has not prescribed any medication. (N.T. 76)
8A': is claims of error by the trial court essentially challenge the court' sdetermination that A nd his expert witness were not credible.
Counsel for the State Police introduced the non-precedential decision of the Superior Court dated April 11, 2023 which affirmed the trial court's affirmance of the MHRO's Order in 2021 which extended A. is involuntary commitment a The Superior Court provided the following history regarding A: ' s302 and 303 commitments:
J.A. was seventeen years old when his parents, both healthcare "
professionals,$ filed apetition for involuntary commitment of their son, fearing for his and their own safety. J.A.'s father reported that J.A.'s `paranoia, grandiosity and dysregulated mood has severely escalated over the past 30 days — police had to be called three times to calm him and protect us[;] CYS and Mobile Crisis have also come to our home several times over [the] past 30 days[.]' Application for Involuntary Emergency Examination and Treatment (Section 302 Petition), 2/20/21. J.A.'s father and mother also reported that J.A. had made verbal threats toward them, that J.A. believed they were stealing his mail, and that J.A. believed his mother was trying to poison him. Id.
J.A. was evaluated by Tracy Bunius, M.D., apsychiatrist, who concluded that, based upon the circumstances that existed on February 20, 2021, J.A. was severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment and inpatient psychiatric admission for stabilization and safety. See 50 P.S. §7301.
Pursuant to subsection 7302 of the MHPA (section 302), J.A. was involuntarily committed to Bryn Mawr Hospital. He was subsequently transferred to Horsham Clinic on February 21, 2021, where he was admitted for mental health treatment. See Id. at §7302.
J.A. was treated at Horsham Clinic for two days. After examination and evaluation, James Yi, M.D., aboard-certified psychiatrist, submitted a request that the court certify J.A, for extended section 303 involuntary treatment. See 50 P.S. §7303. See also Section 303 Application for Extended Involuntary Treatment, 2/23/22; Attending Psychiatrist Evaluation/Admission History and Examination, 2/22/21, at 6 (Doctor Yi Indicating J.A. `[d]angerous to self, others or property with need for controlled environment.")."
"No. 1362 EDA 2022. sJ.A. father is apsychiatrist,and his mother is aregistered nurse.
A' .. sverified petition for restoration of firearms rights stated he was "currently a student at Vanderbilt University." (N.T. 42, 43) This statement is false and inaccurate. A' . never attended Vanderbilt University. A• . r...: ;fled a "Statement of Correction" on April 1, 2024 addressing the false statement about attending Vanderbilt University. The corrected statement contained another incorrect statement. (N.T. 55)
A. —, ,resented resented the testimony of Dr. Robert L. Tanenbaum, alicensed clinical
psychologist at the hearing. Dr. Tanenbaum reviewed records of police reports involving At — -fom the Lower Merion Police Department (N.T. 133) and administered two personality tests and amental status exam. He did not find evidence of psychopathology. Dr. Tanenbaum met with A.-: on August 8, 2023, August 11, 2023, October 3, 2023 and March 8, 2024. The personality test identified A. . as conscientious, focused on objectives, goal oriented and able to manage himself. (N.T. 110) The mental status assessment did not indicate any disturbances in his mental functioning that would meet diagnostic criteria for any number of conditions, including the ones that had been considered when he was hospitalized in 2021. (N.T. 111) Dr. Tanbenbaum concluded that there was "no indication that he would pose adiscernable danger to himself or to anyone else if he were to have his firearm rights restored." (N.T. 112)
The Vanderbilt transcript was attached to an email forwarded to Dr. Tanenbaum by A', late December, 2023. Dr. Tanenbaum°s report is dated the very next day on December 29, 2023 and includes reference that Af'_ - "is currently in his freshman year of college at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, where he is majoring in Law and Society." (p. 2) k _ _ sent his Vanderbilt University transcript to Dr. Tanenbaum without alerting him that he never took classes at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Tanenbaum testified at the hearing he was surprised to learn that A'' ,- did actually attend Vanderbilt. (N.T. 121, 122) The *5 Vanderbilt transcript forwarded by A`- , ^0Dr. Tanenbaum does not have X name on it and is very suspicious.' Dr. Tanenbaum prepared an addendum report dated April 3, 2024 after seeing A. . on March 8, 2024. No mention of the false statement of attending Vanderbilt was contained in the addendum report. (N.T. 162)
III. DISCUSSION
18 Pa.C.S.A. §6105(c)(4) prohibits any person from possessing or using afirearm "who has been involuntary committed to amental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L< 817, No. 143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act."
18 Pa.C.S.A. §6105(f)(1) prescribes, "Upon application to the court of common pleas under this subsection by an applicant subject to the prohibitions under subsection (c)(4), the court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate if the court determines that the applicant may possess afirearm without risk to the applicant or any other person." Section 6105(0(1) "plainly leaves the decision of whether to restore the right to possess afirearm within the discretion of the trial court." E.G.G. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 219 A.3d 679, 683 (Pa. Super. 2019). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment... [It) occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record." Id. Moreover, "it is well-settled that a [ ] finder of fact is free to believe all, part or none of awitness' testimony" and therefore may "discount[ ] the testimony of Appellant's psychiatric expert." Id. eA copy of the Vanderbilt University transcript provided to Dr. Tanenbaum by r. • ,, appended hereto.
A_• . misled both his lawyee and psychologist who respectively prepared acourt filing and aprofessional report noting A _ _ , was attending auniversity he never actually attended. A: 'sexplanations why the Vanderbilt transcript was not aforgery were convoluted and unconvincing. (N.T. 58-63; 171-172; 187, 197-199)
Dr. Tanenbaum's testimony demonstrated that K. sfundamental motive in filing this petition was to re-hash the 2021 incident in alight favorable to A::: -.n. Dr. Tanenbaum testified that A:_--^ filed his petition because "he feels extremely frustrated that he has not been able to persuade his own parents" that he is not athreat to them. (N.T. 156) Half of Dr. Tanenbaum's nine page report was devoted to the 2021 events. Dr. Tanenbaum decided not to interview A. sparents as part of his evaluation because A .— "was very uncomfortable with the idea" (N.T. 127) This was an important piece of evidence for the court to evaluate in assessing A, scurrent risk of danger to himself or others. Similarly, neither Dr. Tanenbaum nor A: 2.rocured or produced the testimony or records from A<<-: ': treating psychiatrist, Dr. Weinstein, which also would have aided the court's assessment of Air- .scurrent status.
The court rejects Dr. Tanenbaum's assessment and conclusions as unduly driven by A is personal motive to exonerate himself to his parents. The court further rejects Dr. Tanenbaum's incomplete evaluation that A:. Gnot currently arisk to himself or others if he were to possess afirearm.
'Al _ -' Slawyer also thought the Vanderbilt transcript could be "funny business." His reaction when seeking A - •^ "' Vanderbilt transcript was "to rip his head off." (N.T. 199)
c
- • 3
a a Moreover, the court also rejects A. _ self-assessment reaching the same conclusion. 13 c Q :.12 12 A• scredibility in this action is very compromised by the false statement in his petition ,th e
f2 :z-6 ` production of atranscript from an academic institution he never attended and his deceptions to
his lawyer and psychologist about the accuracy of his educational history. A has woefully
failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Accordingly, the court strongly recommends that the Order a• v• denying the petition to restore firearm privileges be AFFIRMED. 3m IP D
BY T CuURT: `= a c wm ws E RI -' ARD P. I-IAAZ, •o G ,C N ,lp
42 e-filed on May 23, 2024 08 Copies sent via Prothonotary to the parties of record, .0 EmWled to Court Administration — Civil Division If k
Judicial Secretary go•
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY Personallnfonnation F;i•(l•ild[ Financial Aid
Final Grades
student Information Current Program Bachelor of Arts Level: Undergraduate Program: Law, History & Society, B. A. Admit Term: Fall 2023 Admit Type: Transfer Catalog Term: Fail 2023 College: Arts & Sciences Campus: Main Major and Department: Law, History & Society Academic Standing : Good Standing
Undergraduate Course work gn Subject Coarse Section Course Title Campus Final Grade Attempted Earned GPA Hours Quality Points
73540 BLAW 301 2 Business Law Main A+ 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
78881 COMS 102 1 Introduct to Public Speaking Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
787421SEM 307 1 Digital Communication &Culture Main A+ 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
74162 LAW 201 1 Constitutional Law Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
74164 LAW 300 1 international Law Main A- 3.000 3.000 3.000 11.10
74165 LAW 302 1 Law and Ethics Main A- 3.000 3.000 3.000 11.10
78896 PSW 203 1 Technical Writing Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
Circulated 01/07/2025 03:17 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION
J, ` . 4' A- NO. 2024-00587
vs. 1289 EDA 2024
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE and MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
HAAZ, J. MAY 23, 2024
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant, J , _k (`'_ ______=s>"), appeals this court's Order dated April 8, 2024,
which denied his Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights Pursuant to I8 Pa.C.S.A. 6105(f)(1).
A: filed aPetition for Restoration of Firearms Rights on January 10, 2024 against the Pennsylvania State Police and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office. Neither Defendant filed awritten response to the petition. , petition alleged, inter alia, that his involuntary commitment to amental institution for inpatient care and treatment in 2021 renders him currently disabled from possessing afirearm pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6105(c)(4) and 18 U.S.C. Section 922. 1 The petition further avers that A.___ iis not currently arisk to others if he were to own and possess firearms.2 1 AE , etition, paragraph 18. 2 A `.:, , hpetition, paragraphs 19, 20.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on A' ' spetition on April 5, 2024. On April 8, 2024, the court entered an Order denying A_'` --- is petition. A. _.ifiled aNotice of Appeal on April 30, 2024. The court filed an Order dated April 30, 2024 directing A: file aConcise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the P.R.App.P. A• - . , filed aConcise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal raising fourteen grounds of error, 3
II. THE HEARING
A• • ' counsel acknowledged at the outset of the hearing that the only issue before the court is "whether we can satisfy our burden of proof that (Al , d is not adanger to himself or to others today, not three-and-a-half years ago:' (N.T. 14)
R _. A-_ ,, testified he was born on August 2003 and attends class at Thomas Jefferson University. He maintains agrade point average of 3.94. He was president of TJU's debating society and was aregional debating champion in high school. He plays about 100 chess games per week. He has no desire to obtain afirearm and seeks acourt Order stating he is not a danger to himself or others. (N.T. 29) He is afull time student and is not employed. He testified he has avery good support system. (N.T. 49)
Al irecalled he was diagnosed as having abrief psychotic disorder and delusional disorder during his involuntary commitment in 2021. (N.T. 33) After his discharge from the Horsham Clinic in 2021, he received follow-up advice from his father who is apsychiatrist. (N.T. 39) A, anow sees Dr. Steven Weinstein, apsychiatrist, two to three times ayear on an as needed basis. (N.T. 75) Dr. Weinstein has not rendered adiagnosis and has not prescribed any medication. (N.T. 76)
8A': is claims of error by the trial court essentially challenge the court' sdetermination that A nd his expert witness were not credible.
Counsel for the State Police introduced the non-precedential decision of the Superior Court dated April 11, 2023 which affirmed the trial court's affirmance of the MHRO's Order in 2021 which extended A. is involuntary commitment a The Superior Court provided the following history regarding A: ' s302 and 303 commitments:
J.A. was seventeen years old when his parents, both healthcare "
professionals,$ filed apetition for involuntary commitment of their son, fearing for his and their own safety. J.A.'s father reported that J.A.'s `paranoia, grandiosity and dysregulated mood has severely escalated over the past 30 days — police had to be called three times to calm him and protect us[;] CYS and Mobile Crisis have also come to our home several times over [the] past 30 days[.]' Application for Involuntary Emergency Examination and Treatment (Section 302 Petition), 2/20/21. J.A.'s father and mother also reported that J.A. had made verbal threats toward them, that J.A. believed they were stealing his mail, and that J.A. believed his mother was trying to poison him. Id.
J.A. was evaluated by Tracy Bunius, M.D., apsychiatrist, who concluded that, based upon the circumstances that existed on February 20, 2021, J.A. was severely mentally disabled and in need of treatment and inpatient psychiatric admission for stabilization and safety. See 50 P.S. §7301.
Pursuant to subsection 7302 of the MHPA (section 302), J.A. was involuntarily committed to Bryn Mawr Hospital. He was subsequently transferred to Horsham Clinic on February 21, 2021, where he was admitted for mental health treatment. See Id. at §7302.
J.A. was treated at Horsham Clinic for two days. After examination and evaluation, James Yi, M.D., aboard-certified psychiatrist, submitted a request that the court certify J.A, for extended section 303 involuntary treatment. See 50 P.S. §7303. See also Section 303 Application for Extended Involuntary Treatment, 2/23/22; Attending Psychiatrist Evaluation/Admission History and Examination, 2/22/21, at 6 (Doctor Yi Indicating J.A. `[d]angerous to self, others or property with need for controlled environment.")."
"No. 1362 EDA 2022. sJ.A. father is apsychiatrist,and his mother is aregistered nurse.
A' .. sverified petition for restoration of firearms rights stated he was "currently a student at Vanderbilt University." (N.T. 42, 43) This statement is false and inaccurate. A' . never attended Vanderbilt University. A• . r...: ;fled a "Statement of Correction" on April 1, 2024 addressing the false statement about attending Vanderbilt University. The corrected statement contained another incorrect statement. (N.T. 55)
A. —, ,resented resented the testimony of Dr. Robert L. Tanenbaum, alicensed clinical
psychologist at the hearing. Dr. Tanenbaum reviewed records of police reports involving At — -fom the Lower Merion Police Department (N.T. 133) and administered two personality tests and amental status exam. He did not find evidence of psychopathology. Dr. Tanenbaum met with A.-: on August 8, 2023, August 11, 2023, October 3, 2023 and March 8, 2024. The personality test identified A. . as conscientious, focused on objectives, goal oriented and able to manage himself. (N.T. 110) The mental status assessment did not indicate any disturbances in his mental functioning that would meet diagnostic criteria for any number of conditions, including the ones that had been considered when he was hospitalized in 2021. (N.T. 111) Dr. Tanbenbaum concluded that there was "no indication that he would pose adiscernable danger to himself or to anyone else if he were to have his firearm rights restored." (N.T. 112)
The Vanderbilt transcript was attached to an email forwarded to Dr. Tanenbaum by A', late December, 2023. Dr. Tanenbaum°s report is dated the very next day on December 29, 2023 and includes reference that Af'_ - "is currently in his freshman year of college at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, where he is majoring in Law and Society." (p. 2) k _ _ sent his Vanderbilt University transcript to Dr. Tanenbaum without alerting him that he never took classes at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Tanenbaum testified at the hearing he was surprised to learn that A'' ,- did actually attend Vanderbilt. (N.T. 121, 122) The *5 Vanderbilt transcript forwarded by A`- , ^0Dr. Tanenbaum does not have X name on it and is very suspicious.' Dr. Tanenbaum prepared an addendum report dated April 3, 2024 after seeing A. . on March 8, 2024. No mention of the false statement of attending Vanderbilt was contained in the addendum report. (N.T. 162)
III. DISCUSSION
18 Pa.C.S.A. §6105(c)(4) prohibits any person from possessing or using afirearm "who has been involuntary committed to amental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L< 817, No. 143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act."
18 Pa.C.S.A. §6105(f)(1) prescribes, "Upon application to the court of common pleas under this subsection by an applicant subject to the prohibitions under subsection (c)(4), the court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate if the court determines that the applicant may possess afirearm without risk to the applicant or any other person." Section 6105(0(1) "plainly leaves the decision of whether to restore the right to possess afirearm within the discretion of the trial court." E.G.G. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 219 A.3d 679, 683 (Pa. Super. 2019). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment... [It) occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record." Id. Moreover, "it is well-settled that a [ ] finder of fact is free to believe all, part or none of awitness' testimony" and therefore may "discount[ ] the testimony of Appellant's psychiatric expert." Id. eA copy of the Vanderbilt University transcript provided to Dr. Tanenbaum by r. • ,, appended hereto.
A_• . misled both his lawyee and psychologist who respectively prepared acourt filing and aprofessional report noting A _ _ , was attending auniversity he never actually attended. A: 'sexplanations why the Vanderbilt transcript was not aforgery were convoluted and unconvincing. (N.T. 58-63; 171-172; 187, 197-199)
Dr. Tanenbaum's testimony demonstrated that K. sfundamental motive in filing this petition was to re-hash the 2021 incident in alight favorable to A::: -.n. Dr. Tanenbaum testified that A:_--^ filed his petition because "he feels extremely frustrated that he has not been able to persuade his own parents" that he is not athreat to them. (N.T. 156) Half of Dr. Tanenbaum's nine page report was devoted to the 2021 events. Dr. Tanenbaum decided not to interview A. sparents as part of his evaluation because A .— "was very uncomfortable with the idea" (N.T. 127) This was an important piece of evidence for the court to evaluate in assessing A, scurrent risk of danger to himself or others. Similarly, neither Dr. Tanenbaum nor A: 2.rocured or produced the testimony or records from A<<-: ': treating psychiatrist, Dr. Weinstein, which also would have aided the court's assessment of Air- .scurrent status.
The court rejects Dr. Tanenbaum's assessment and conclusions as unduly driven by A is personal motive to exonerate himself to his parents. The court further rejects Dr. Tanenbaum's incomplete evaluation that A:. Gnot currently arisk to himself or others if he were to possess afirearm.
'Al _ -' Slawyer also thought the Vanderbilt transcript could be "funny business." His reaction when seeking A - •^ "' Vanderbilt transcript was "to rip his head off." (N.T. 199)
c
- • 3
a a Moreover, the court also rejects A. _ self-assessment reaching the same conclusion. 13 c Q :.12 12 A• scredibility in this action is very compromised by the false statement in his petition ,th e
f2 :z-6 ` production of atranscript from an academic institution he never attended and his deceptions to
his lawyer and psychologist about the accuracy of his educational history. A has woefully
failed to satisfy his burden of proof. Accordingly, the court strongly recommends that the Order a• v• denying the petition to restore firearm privileges be AFFIRMED. 3m IP D
BY T CuURT: `= a c wm ws E RI -' ARD P. I-IAAZ, •o G ,C N ,lp
42 e-filed on May 23, 2024 08 Copies sent via Prothonotary to the parties of record, .0 EmWled to Court Administration — Civil Division If k
Judicial Secretary go•
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY Personallnfonnation F;i•(l•ild[ Financial Aid
Final Grades
student Information Current Program Bachelor of Arts Level: Undergraduate Program: Law, History & Society, B. A. Admit Term: Fall 2023 Admit Type: Transfer Catalog Term: Fail 2023 College: Arts & Sciences Campus: Main Major and Department: Law, History & Society Academic Standing : Good Standing
Undergraduate Course work gn Subject Coarse Section Course Title Campus Final Grade Attempted Earned GPA Hours Quality Points
73540 BLAW 301 2 Business Law Main A+ 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
78881 COMS 102 1 Introduct to Public Speaking Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
787421SEM 307 1 Digital Communication &Culture Main A+ 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
74162 LAW 201 1 Constitutional Law Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00
74164 LAW 300 1 international Law Main A- 3.000 3.000 3.000 11.10
74165 LAW 302 1 Law and Ethics Main A- 3.000 3.000 3.000 11.10
78896 PSW 203 1 Technical Writing Main A 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.00