Graham, T. v. Flippen, L.
649 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Terrence Graham (appellant) is serving two life sentences after conviction for the 2010 murders of Lynna Flippen (the PFA plaintiff in three matters) and Earnest Yarbrough. Flippen is deceased.
- Four separate PFA dockets are at issue: three PFA petitions filed by Flippen against Graham (2007-4767, 2008-9343, 2010-1074) and one PFA petition filed by Graham against Flippen (2007-8347).
- The three PFAs filed by Flippen resulted only in temporary orders that were later dismissed before any hearing at which allegations would be proved.
- The PFA Graham filed against Flippen proceeded to a hearing and a final order was entered denying Graham's petition (i.e., the allegations against Flippen were not proven in Graham’s favor).
- Graham petitioned to expunge all four PFA dockets. The trial court denied expungement, citing the use of those records at Graham’s homicide trial and relying on Charnik/Wexler reasoning. Graham appealed, and the Superior Court consolidated the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by failing to apply Supreme Court expungement criteria (Carlacci) | Graham: Carlacci requires expungement where PFAs never reached a hearing; his records are unproven and must be expunged as a matter of law | Trial court: Records were used at Graham’s murder trial; Wexler balancing and Charnik rationale justify retaining records | Held for Graham: where PFAs were dismissed before a hearing, expungement is required as a matter of law; Wexler inapplicable |
| Whether denial of expungement was an abuse of discretion because it conflicts with expungement standards | Graham: Three PFAs were only temporary and dismissed pre-hearing; the fourth was denied — none established abuse by adjudication, so expungement is proper | Trial court: Charnik indicates expungement inappropriate where PFA record is effectively like a conviction and when records were evidentiary at criminal trial | Held for Graham: Charnik is distinguishable (Charnik involved a final PFA order and contempts); these PFAs fall within the Carlacci prong requiring expungement |
| Whether Graham was entitled to a hearing on his expungement petitions | Graham: At minimum, a hearing should have been held to present evidence for expungement | Trial court: Denial based on evidentiary value to criminal prosecution and Charnik/Wexler considerations; did not hold hearing | Held for Graham: No hearing required where expungement is proper as a matter of law (Carlacci); trial court should have granted expungement without Wexler balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002) (expungement required as a matter of law where PFA proceedings never advanced to a hearing and allegations remained unproven)
- Charnik v. Charnik, 921 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 2007) (establishes an "expungement continuum" and denies expungement when a final PFA order was entered after a hearing and related contempts exist)
- Wexler v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (balancing test for expungement of arrest records; inapplicable where expungement is mandated as a matter of law)