Commonwealth v. Giulian
111 A.3d 201
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- In 1997 Giulian pled guilty to summary offenses: underage drinking (later expunged), harassment, and public drunkenness.
- In 1998 she pled guilty to a separate summary offense of criminal mischief.
- In May 2013 Giulian petitioned to expunge both the 1997 and 1998 convictions; the 1998 conviction was granted expungement by the trial court.
- The District Attorney objected to expungement of the 1997 harassment and public drunkenness convictions because Giulian was arrested and convicted in 1998, allegedly interrupting the required five-year arrest-free period after the 1997 convictions under 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122(b)(3)(i).
- After a hearing the trial court denied expungement of the 1997 convictions; Giulian appealed asserting she satisfied the statute because she has been free of arrest or prosecution for more than five years following the 1997 convictions.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the statute requires being free of arrest or prosecution for the five years immediately following the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122(b)(3)(i) allows expungement when the petitioner is free of arrest or prosecution for any five-year period following conviction, or requires freedom for the five years immediately following conviction | Giulian: statute permits expungement if petitioner has been free from arrest or prosecution for any five-year period after the conviction (she has such a period) | Commonwealth: statute requires the five-year period to be the immediate five years following the conviction; Giulian’s 1998 conviction breaks that immediate five-year period | Court held the statute requires being free of arrest or prosecution for the five years immediately following the conviction; expungement denied for the 1997 summary convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 672 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super. 1996) (expungement statute protects individuals from hardships of arrest records)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 97 A.3d 310 (Pa. 2014) (trial court balances individual harm against Commonwealth’s interest when ruling on expungement)
- Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (non-exhaustive factors for expungement decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Van Aulen, 952 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. 2008) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statutes must be construed to give effect to all provisions; avoid surplusage)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (penal statutes are strictly construed under rule of lenity)