AUSTIN v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 118
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2009 Austin, a dentist, pled guilty under North Carolina v. Alford and Georgia’s First Offender law to six misdemeanor counts of theft by taking for fraudulent Medicaid billing and was placed on five years probation.
- Austin’s probation was terminated early in June 2012; an Order of Discharge (dated Aug. 18, 2016, nunc pro tunc to June 8, 2012) exonerated him and discharged him under the First Offender Act.
- In July 2016 Austin petitioned under OCGA § 42-8-62.1(d) to seal the clerk’s office records, alleging the clerk had transmitted unmarked charging documents to media that were published and harmed his reputation and dental practice.
- The statute requires sealing if (1) the defendant was exonerated and discharged and (2) the harm to the individual’s privacy outweighs the public interest, proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The trial court denied sealing, finding Austin’s profession (public trust) made the public interest in access outweigh his privacy interest, but ordered clerk to stamp documents to reflect the discharge/exoneration.
- Austin appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the trial court properly applied the statutory balancing test and was justified in keeping records public given the nature and repeated public-funds deception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Austin’s petition to seal first-offender records under OCGA § 42-8-62.1(d) | Austin: sealing required because he was exonerated/discharged and his privacy harm from public dissemination outweighs public interest | State: public interest in access to records—especially where crimes involved deceit and theft of public funds by a trusted professional—outweighs Austin’s privacy | Held: Affirmed. Trial court properly applied preponderance balancing test and could reasonably favor public access given repeated theft of public funds by a professional |
| Whether statutory or public policy arguments about professional licensing create a legal absurdity requiring sealing | Austin: licensing board can’t consider first-offender misdemeanors from GCIC, so leaving records public creates an absurdity and undermines sealing purpose | State: licensing board interests don’t control court’s balancing for clerk’s records; court must apply the statute’s text | Held: Rejected. Court declines to rewrite statute; plain statutory language controls and does not create an absurdity |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty plea accepted despite protestation of innocence where plea is intelligent and supported by strong evidence)
- State v. Bunn, 288 Ga. 20 (2010) (explaining preponderance-of-evidence standard for criminal matters)
- Malloy v. State, 329 Ga. App. 38 (2014) (noting theft of public funds involves deceit and undermines public trust)
- Nasir v. Gwinnett County State Court, 341 Ga. App. 63 (2017) (statutory construction requires enforcing plain language of legislature)
- Meinken v. Burgess, 262 Ga. 863 (1993) (distinguished; different statutory framework)