City of Phila. v. Armstrong

• Decision Date: 14 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1204 C.D. 2020
• Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. Rashad T. ARMSTRONG, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

271 A.3d 555

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

v.Rashad T. ARMSTRONG, Appellant

No. 1204 C.D. 2020

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued November 15, 2021

Decided February 14, 2022

Joshua Prince, Bechtelsville, for Appellant.

Jasmeet K. Ahuja and Danielle E. Walsh, Philadelphia, for Appellee City of Philadelphia.

Benjamin D. Geffen, Philadelphia, for Appellees Freda Hall, Kimberly Burrell, Mothers in Charge, Inc., CeaseFire Pennsylvania Education Fund, and Philadelphia Anti-Drug/Anti-Violence Network, Inc.

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

In this action commenced by the City of Philadelphia (City), Rashad T. Armstrong (Appellant) appeals from the November 12, 2020 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) denying his motion for a permanent injunction that sought to enjoin the City from enforcing Philadelphia Code § 10-838a (Section 10-838a),¹ which imposes a fine on individuals who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm, on the ground that it is preempted by Section 6120(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120(a).² We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a permanent injunction in favor of Appellant.

Background

On November 1, 2019, the City filed a complaint alleging that Appellant violated Section 10-838a in failing to report a firearm missing or stolen within 24 hours to the Philadelphia Police Department and seeking a fine in the amount of $2,000.00. The City averred that on December 6, 2017, Appellant purchased a SR9E Model Ruger with the serial number 338-18643 (the firearm) from New Frontier Outfitters located at 9280 Ridge Pike, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On April 23, 2018, Appellant knew that the firearm he owned was either lost or stolen. On May 3, 2018, the Lancaster Police Department in Lancaster City, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, found the firearm, searched the National Crime Information Center's database on lost or stolen guns, and received no matches. After the firearm was traced to Appellant, the Philadelphia Police Department interviewed him on June 26, 2018, and he reported for the first time that the firearm had been stolen from him on or about April 23, 2018. (Trial court op. at 1-2.)

In the course of the pleading stage of the litigation, Appellant filed a motion for a permanent injunction on December 16, 2019, asserting that Section 10-838a was invalid and unenforceable because it was preempted by Section 6120(a) of the UFA. Over Appellant's objection, the trial court, on March 9, 2020, granted a petition to intervene filed by CeaseFire Pennsylvania Education Fund, Philadelphia Anti-Drug/Anti-Violence Network, Inc., Mothers in Charge, Inc., and Kimberly Burrell and Freda Hall (Intervenors). After the City filed an answer to the motion for a permanent injunction and Intervenors filed a brief in opposition to the motion, the trial court convened a hearing, via Zoom, on November 12, 2020, and denied Appellant's motion that same day. On November 13, 2020, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court and, on November 20, 2020, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. In turn, Appellant filed his concise statement on November 23, 2020, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a permanent injunction, permitting the witnesses' testimony and the admission of exhibits at the hearing, and granting Intervenors' petition for intervention. On May 20, 2021, the trial court issued its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. (Trial court op. at 3-4.)

In its opinion, the trial court supported the denial of permanent injunctive relief by focusing, in notable part, on the fact that on January 31, 2019, Appellant tendered a guilty plea in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to 3 firearm offenses, namely 2 violations of the UFA, Sections 6108 and 6111, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6108 (Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia), 6111 (Illegal sale or transfer of firearms), and one violation of the Crimes Code,³ Section 4906, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4906 (False reports to law enforcement authorities), and was sentenced to 7 ½ to 23 months' incarceration, followed by 2 years of probation. In the guilty plea colloquy, which the trial court appended to its opinion, Appellant admitted that he purchased six firearms, including the firearm at issue here, and five of them were recovered from other persons during arrests or pursuant to a search warrant. With respect to the sixth firearm, Appellant falsely reported to the police that it had been stolen and later conceded that he gave it to an unknown person. During the time of the purchases, Appellant did not possess a valid license to own or carry a firearm and, in every instance, he did not report to the police that a firearm had been lost or stolen. (Trial court op. at Ex. A; Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 1/31/2019, at 8-15.)

The trial court then concluded that it properly denied Appellant permanent injunctive relief based on the following rationale:

Appellant avers that this court committed an error of law, abused its discretion, or violated Appellant's constitutional rights by denying the [m]otion for [p]ermanent [i]njunction. On January 31, 2019, Appellant, at his criminal sentencing, admitted to being the straw purchaser on [6] different occasions and that he did not have a valid license to carry a firearm. Appellant's own attorney stated that, "He's the perfect straw purchaser." Appellant's guilty plea and subsequent probation precluded him from owning a firearm again under state law as well as federal law[.] In order to obtain a permanent injunction, the law is clear. Appellant must show actual and substantial injury is likely in the future. Instantly, Appellant cannot show that there is a future injury because he is barred from owning a firearm as a result of his actions as a straw purchaser and his subsequent guilty plea thereto.

Appellant is also unable to obtain a permanent injunction as he approaches this court with unclean hands. Under the doctrine of unclean hands, a court may deprive a party of equitable relief where, to the detriment of the other party, the party applying for such relief is guilty of bad conduct relating to the matter at issue. ... Instantly, Appellant arrives with unclean hands and a history of straw purchasing firearms that have then been used in shootings and other crimes. Appellant violated a statute and now seeks to enjoin the enforcement related thereto even after operating deceitfully while committing his crimes.

[A] party seeking a permanent injunction must prove that greater injury will result in refusing rather than granting the relief requested. This court heard testimony and received amicus briefs from numerous community entities and groups stating the danger that firearms pose to our community in Philadelphia. Dr. Dauer, a Temple University Hospital trauma surgeon, stated, "We see gunshot wound victims pretty much on a daily basis, anywhere from [2] to [10] a day, on average." Dr. Nance, the director of the Pediatric Trauma Program at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and an investigator for the Center for Injury Research and Prevention, discussed both the Post Traumatic Stress that accompanies children that suffer from a firearm injury [and] that [12] to [15%] of firearm injuries in children result in death. Ms. Harley, the Deputy Managing Director for Criminal Justice and Public Safety, discussed the gun violence occurring all throughout the [C]ity and certain programs that [the City] has taken to curb gun violence. Appellant does not meet [this] burden.

(Trial court op. at 5-7) (internal citations and some quotation marks omitted).

Otherwise, the trial court determined that Appellant could not appeal from the March 5, 2020 order granting Intervenors' petition to intervene. In so doing, the trial court noted that a party has 30 days from which to file a notice of appeal from an order, and Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until November 13, 2020, approximately "219 days after the deadline to file an appeal." Id. at 8. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that an appeal from the order granting intervention would be untimely and, thus, unreviewable on appeal in this Court.

Discussion

Before this Court, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in (1) denying his request for a permanent injunction, (2) granting Intervenors' petition for intervention, and (3) allowing witnesses to testify, and documentary evidence to be admitted, during the hearing on the permanent injunction.

Permanent Injunction

Appellant argues that he is entitled to a permanent injunction because his right to relief is clear, in that Section 10-838a is preempted by Section 6120(a) of the UFA; an injunction is necessary to avoid an injury that cannot be compensated by damages; and greater injury will result if the request for the injunction was denied as compared to if it was granted. In addition, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in applying the standard for a preliminary injunction , requiring him to show irreparable harm and the need for immediate relief, because these elements are not applicable to—and need not be proven to obtain—a permanent injunction .

In response, the City contends that Appellant does not possess a clear right to relief because his actions as a "straw purchaser," which the City states is the underlying conduct proscribed in Section 10-838a, are illegal under Section 6111(g) of the UFA and, therefore, fall outside the scope of Section 6120(a)'s preemptive reach. Citing Minich v. County of Jefferson , 869 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (en banc ), the City contends that Section 6120(a) only preempts those municipal laws that regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation of...