Commonwealth v. Wallace
97 A.3d 310
Pa.2014Background
- Appellee seeks expungement of approximately 150 non-conviction arrest records while incarcerated.
- Trial court denied all eight expungement petitions after balancing factors under Wexler.
- Superior Court reversed, remanding for a charge-by-charge determination and held a hearing may be required.
- Commonwealth argues inmates lack due process right to expungement while in prison and expungement is less warranted during incarceration.
- This Court accepts discretionary review to resolve whether an incarcerated career criminal has a due process right to an expungement hearing and, if so, on what basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to expungement hearing while incarcerated | Wallace asserts due process requires a hearing for expungement on many charges. | Commonwealth contends no right to an expungement hearing during incarceration. | Inmate has no right to expungement hearing while incarcerated. |
| Application of Wexler factors on remand | Wallace argues the trial court erred by denying expungement without considering Wexler factors on a charge-by-charge basis. | Commonwealth contends the trial court properly weighed interests with substantial record. | Trial court’s Wexler-based analysis stands and remand unnecessary for new hearing on all charges. |
| Effect of acquittals on automatic expungement | D.M. supports automatic expungement for acquittals, which Wallace emphasizes should apply here. | Commonwealth argues D.M. is distinguishable and not controlling for a long criminal history. | Not to automatically expunge acquittals; context-specific analysis governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wexler, 494 Pa. 325 (Pa. 1981) (five Wexler factors for expungement balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Moto, 611 Pa. 95 (Pa. 2011) (expungement analysis when prosecution terminated without conviction or acquittal)
- Commonwealth v. D.M., 548 Pa. 131 (Pa. 1997) (acquittal entitles automatic expungement of arrest record)
- Commonwealth v. Payne, 582 Pa. 375 (Pa. 2005) (prison inmates lack full constitutional protections; rights curtailed by incarceration)
- Wallace v. Commonwealth, 45 A.3d 446 (Pa. Super. 2012) (disagreed with waivers and remand approach; panel discussed 1925 requirements)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (contextual approach to decisions; read decisions against facts)