Brian J. Allen v. State of Indiana, 159 N.E.3d 580

In 2002 Brian J. Allen accompanied others in a residential burglary during which the victim suffered serious bodily injury; Allen remained outside as a lookout.
Allen pleaded guilty to Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary after more serious charges (including aggravated battery) were dismissed as part of the plea; he was sentenced, later had sentence modified, served ~34 months, completed probation, and had no prior criminal history.
After the statutory waiting period he petitioned under the permissive expungement statute, I.C. § 35-38-9-4; victims and character witnesses supported expungement.
At the expungement hearing Allen admitted the victim had suffered serious bodily injury; the State questioned eligibility under the statute’s exclusion for felonies that "resulted in serious bodily injury."
The trial court denied the petition without explaining its reasons; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed and remanded because the court may have misapplied the statutory eligibility rule and failed to articulate its discretionary reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SBI Exclusion (§ 35-38-9-4(b)(3)) bars expungement based on underlying facts or only on the elements of the crime of conviction	Allen: Exclusion applies only if the felony of conviction itself resulted in serious bodily injury; his conspiracy conviction did not	State: Court may look to underlying facts incidental to the conviction (here those facts involved SBI) to deny eligibility	The exclusion applies to the felony of conviction (its elements); underlying facts alone do not render a conviction ineligible — Allen was eligible
Whether a trial court considering a permissive expungement may consider underlying facts and whether the court must articulate its discretionary basis	Allen: Court should focus on conviction eligibility, consider rehabilitation evidence, and must state reasons when denying	State: Trial court has discretion and may consider underlying facts when deciding to deny expungement	A trial court may consider facts incident to the conviction when exercising discretion, but must first determine eligibility and should articulate its reasons; remanded because the court gave no explanation and may have relied on an erroneous eligibility belief

Trout v. State, 28 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (interpreting restrictive "that" clause to require the felony of conviction itself to have resulted in bodily injury)
Cline v. State, 61 N.E.3d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (expungement statutes are remedial; discretionary denials reviewed for abuse of discretion)
White v. State, 961 N.E.2d 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (courts may consider underlying facts for different statutory classifications)
State v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 964 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)