Com. v. Hollerbach, K.
714 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 1, 2017Background
- In 2006 Hollerbach was charged with criminal mischief, terroristic threats, and stalking arising from a February 5, 2006 incident.
- After a preliminary hearing the magisterial district judge dismissed the stalking charge and bound the other two charges over for trial.
- The Commonwealth later nolle prossed the criminal mischief charge and reduced the terroristic threats charge to a summary harassment charge, to which Hollerbach pled guilty to the summary offense (plea colloquy not in the record).
- In 2016 Hollerbach petitioned to expunge his arrest/charging records under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(b)(3)(i) (summary conviction expungement after five years free of arrest/prosecution).
- The trial court denied the petition after the Commonwealth’s attorney read alleged affidavits of probable cause into the record (no sworn witnesses); Hollerbach objected.
- On appeal the Superior Court found the record insufficient to determine whether the reductions/terminations resulted from a negotiated plea, or from the Commonwealth’s inability to meet a habeas-corpus prima facie burden, and remanded for further proceedings; it ordered expungement of all records related to the stalking charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hollerbach) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth erred by reading affidavits of probable cause into the record (hearsay) | Reading affidavits to court was improper hearsay and not admissible evidence | Reading provided context; not offered for truth so was acceptable | Not definitively decided — record ambiguous and case remanded; court noted no sworn testimony and Hollerbach did not concede affidavits' accuracy |
| Whether stalking charge must be expunged after dismissal at preliminary hearing | Stalking was dismissed by magistrate for insufficient evidence; thus entitled to expungement (acquittal-like protection) | N/A (Commonwealth did not refile) | Stalking records must be expunged — reversal on that point |
| Whether records relating to nolle prossed and reduced charges are expungeable when potentially tied to a negotiated plea | Hollerbach argued there is no clear record of a negotiated plea so he may be entitled to expunction under Hanna/automatic expungement principles | Commonwealth argued charges were dismissed as part of a negotiated plea (Lutz), making them ineligible for expungement | Record inadequate to resolve; remanded for factfinding to determine if a plea agreement existed; Lutz not applied because existence of plea was unclear |
| Whether trial court’s denial of expungement should be sustained | Denial improper given inadequate record and entitlement to stalking expungement | Trial court relied on Commonwealth submissions and denied petition | Superior Court reversed in part (stalking) and vacated remainder; remanded for further proceedings and evidentiary findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (expungement of convictions allowed only in narrow statutory circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hanna, 964 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 2009) (when record is inadequate to resolve whether charges were disposed by plea, vacate and remand; dismissed charges at preliminary hearing warrant expungement)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2001) (charges dismissed pursuant to negotiated plea are not eligible for expunction)
- Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (pre-trial habeas corpus tests whether Commonwealth has prima facie case)