IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL RECORDSOF MICHAEL J. DEROSA(02-11-1500, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0481-16T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- In 2002 Michael J. DeRosa, a group-home worker, tied a severely disabled patient to a bed for over 12 hours, causing nerve damage and burns; he denied responsibility and refused medical treatment.
- DeRosa was convicted in 2004 of criminal restraint, sentenced to six months jail, four years probation, 250 hours community service, and fines; he completed sentence and probation and later moved to Florida.
- He earned undergraduate and law degrees, performed limited pro bono and volunteer work, but was denied admission to the Florida and South Carolina bars due to his conviction.
- In 2016 DeRosa petitioned to expunge his criminal record (including a dismissed assault/harassment charge and a later municipal ordinance plea while on probation); the trial court denied the petition.
- DeRosa appealed, arguing the court misapplied the statutory and Kollman balancing factors, improperly weighed remorse and community service, and violated due process; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | DeRosa's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapplied N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a)(2) and Kollman balancing | Court required only ordinary, not exceptional, proof of Kollman factors; judge overvalued lack of community service and minimized petitioner’s rehabilitative evidence | Judge properly weighed nature of offense versus post-conviction conduct; community/public safety concerns justified denial | Affirmed — no misapplication; judge’s balancing within discretion |
| Whether court improperly required admission of guilt or abused discretion by finding lack of remorse | DeRosa: judge impermissibly demanded an admission and ignored psychologist reports and expressions of remorse | State: petitioner’s testimony and record showed deflection, minimizing responsibility, and inconsistent remorse | Affirmed — judge’s credibility and remorse findings supported by record |
| Whether trial court should have given more weight to educational achievements and pro bono work | DeRosa: degrees and limited volunteer/pro bono work show rehabilitation and public benefit | State: education benefited petitioner/family more than public; not equivalent to extensive community service in Kollman | Affirmed — education/pro bono did not outweigh gravity of offense |
| Whether petitioner met burden to show expungement serves public interest | DeRosa: absence of subsequent convictions and supporting evaluations show low risk of reoffense | State: severity of offense, misconduct on probation, and petitioner’s attitude create public-safety concerns | Affirmed — petitioner failed to meet burden that expungement is in public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (2012) (expungement requires balancing nature of offense against applicant’s post-conviction character and conduct)
- In re LoBasso, 423 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 2012) (courts may consider pre- and post-conviction conduct and dismissed charges when evaluating character and public interest)