Com. v. Weaver, J.
Com. v. Weaver, J. No. 1450 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- On March 26, 2008 Weaver was arrested after an auto accident and charged with multiple offenses including two DUI counts and several summary traffic offenses.
- Three summary counts (Driving at Safe Speed, Accidents Involving Damage to Unattended Vehicle or Property, Careless Driving) were marked "withdrawn" on the criminal complaint prior to the Information.
- The Information (7/16/2008) charged two DUI counts (one amended to a second-offense grading) and two summary counts; Weaver pleaded guilty to the Information on 12/1/2008.
- Weaver later filed a petition (7/7/2016) seeking expungement of the summary charges that had been withdrawn and of the original DUI: Highest Rate (1st offense) that had been changed to a 2nd-offense count.
- The trial court denied the petition relying on Commonwealth v. Lutz and the plea‑agreement context; the Superior Court found the certified record inadequate as to the withdrawn summary counts and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, but held no hearing was required for the amended DUI charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weaver) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawn summary charges (marked "withdrawn" pre-Information) require a hearing under Wexler before denying expungement | The withdrawn charges should be expunged; a hearing applying the Wexler balancing test is required | Lutz controls: charges withdrawn as part of plea negotiations need not be expunged and no Wexler hearing is required because expungement would give more than bargained for | Record was inadequate to determine if withdrawn charges were part of plea bargain; remanded for evidentiary hearing and, if appropriate, a Wexler hearing (Commonwealth bears burden to prove Lutz applies) |
| Whether the original DUI: Highest Rate (1st offense) that was changed to a 2nd‑offense count requires an expungement hearing | Weaver sought expungement of the original (changed) charge | Commonwealth argues the amendment corrected grading/offense number and the charged conduct was prosecuted and convicted as amended | No hearing warranted for the amended DUI charge; treating it as a correction to the charged offense is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2001) (denial of expungement appropriate where charges dismissed as part of plea bargain and defendant would get more than bargained for)
- Commonwealth v. Hanna, 964 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 2009) (record insufficient to apply Lutz; Commonwealth must prove Lutz applies by clear and convincing evidence; otherwise Wexler balancing applies)
- Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (sets balancing test and factors for expungement when prosecution terminates without conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Moto, 23 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2011) (standard of appellate review for expungement decisions and discussion of Wexler framework)
- Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 737 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. 1999) (convicted persons generally may not expunge convictions except in limited statutory circumstances)