Com. v. VG
9 A.3d 222
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- In 1986, V.G. pled nolo contendere but mentally ill to burglary of an occupied structure, theft, and receiving stolen property.
- He broke into an occupied home, stole car keys, and took a station wagon early on January 19, 1986, resulting in a sentence of 2 to 23 months.
- On November 13, 2008, V.G. filed a petition to expunge the record of his nolo contendere plea; the petition was denied.
- The Superior Court discussed expungement standards, including the Waughtel and Wexler framework, and distinguished cases involving acquittals, nol pros, and ARD.
- The court held that a nolo contendere plea is treated as a conviction for purposes of the case, but expungement relief depends on statutory grounds or due process considerations and the specific termination of the case.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of expungement, finding that V.G. did not fall within Wexler/D.M. as his case was not terminated without conviction under those provisions, and that a plea agreement (Lutz) did not automatically permit expungement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process entitles expungement despite nolo contendere. | Appellant argues for expungement as a remedial relief. | Commonwealth contends no due process right applies here; statutory/records retention allowed. | No due process right; expungement governed by statute and court discretion. |
| Whether Wexler/D.M. factors apply when case terminated other than acquittal or ARD. | Appellant seeks Wexler factors to support expungement. | Factors do not apply because the case was not terminated without conviction under those terms. | Not applicable; Wexler/D.M. framework does not compel expungement here. |
| Whether expungement is warranted when charges were dropped under a plea agreement (Lutz). | Argues for expungement under broader expungement principles. | Dropped charges under a plea are contractual and not automatically expunged. | Not entitled; plea-based dismissal falls outside automatic expungement. |
| Whether B.C. or W.P. would compel expungement despite a guilty-plea context. | Seeks analogy to acquittal-based expungement. | Not analogous; a guilty plea precedes and constrains the analogy. | No automatic expungement; Wexler factors do not compel it in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Waughtel, 999 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expungement requires balancing; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Hanna, 964 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 2009) (outlines expungement factors and discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (noc proso and acquittal distinctions; burden on Commonwealth to justify retention)
- Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770 (Pa. 1997) (terminations without conviction require Wexler-type evaluation)
- Commonwealth v. B.C., 936 A.2d 1070 (Pa. Super. 2007) (not acquittal; expungement not compelled despite not guilty by insanity)
- Commonwealth v. V.A.M., 980 A.2d 131 (Pa. Super. 2009) (expungement after successful ARD; discussing retention needs)
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2001) (plea bargain context; expungement not automatic for dropped charges)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1970) (nolo contendere treated as guilty for purposes of sentencing)