Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether an incarcerated defendant has a due process right to petition for expungement of non-conviction arrest records while incarcerated. Applying the balancing framework from Mathews v. Eldridge and Pennsylvania expungement precedents, the court concludes that due process does not guarantee such a right during incarceration. The court also upholds the trial court’s application of the Wexler factors and denial of the expungement petitions based on the Commonwealth’s specific interests in retaining the records and the petitioner’s extensive criminal history.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an incarcerated inmate has a due-process right to petition for expungement of non-conviction arrest records while incarcerated.
- Whether the trial court properly applied the Wexler balancing factors in denying the expungement petitions.
- Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that the appellee had complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 and had not waived the issues in two appeals.
Holdings
- An inmate does not have a due-process right to petition for expungement while incarcerated.
- The trial court properly applied the Wexler factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions.
- When a prosecution ends without conviction or acquittal, including by nolle prosequi or successful completion of ARD, expungement is not automatic; the trial court must balance the interests identified in Wexler.
- The appellee waived the issues in appeals 2850 EDA 2010 and 1894 EDA 2010 by filing the required Rule 1925(b) statements after the deadlines imposed by the trial court.
Key quotations
“This is an incorrect statement of law, for, as stated supra, the trial court must balance the individual’s interest against the Commonwealth’s interest when a prosecution has been terminated without conviction or acquittal.” (at 318)
“For the foregoing reasons, we find that an inmate does not have the right to petition for expungement while incarcerated.” (at 322)
Factual background
The appellee had an extensive criminal history consisting of 228 charges, including convictions, guilty pleas, acquittals, withdrawals, dismissals, and nolle prosequi dispositions. While serving a federal sentence, he filed eight petitions seeking expungement of approximately 150 non-conviction charges and requested hearings. The trial court denied the petitions based on the Commonwealth's specific interest in retaining his complete criminal history for prison discipline and parole decisions, his extensive record, and the absence of specific adverse consequences from denying expungement.
Procedural history
The appellee filed eight pro se petitions seeking expungement of approximately 150 charges that had not resulted in convictions. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denied the petitions without hearings. The Superior Court consolidated the appeals, reversed, and remanded for a charge-by-charge application of the Wexler factors and a hearing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance of appeal, held that an incarcerated inmate has no due-process right to petition for expungement while incarcerated, vacated the Superior Court's order, and reinstated the trial court's orders.
Remand instructions
The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court's order and reinstated the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. No further remand instructions were issued.