Jerrell Antonio Key v. State of Indiana, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 759

In 2005 Jerrell Antonio Key was convicted of aiding robbery (Class B felony) and resisting law enforcement (Class D felony); he completed his sentence in 2010.
In March 2015 Key filed a verified petition to expunge both convictions under Indiana’s expungement statute (I.C. ch. 35-38-9).
The prosecuting attorney filed an objection listing five reasons (victim objection, seriousness of offense, lack of remorse, time since conviction, reentry program violation).
The trial court summarily denied Key’s petition without holding a hearing and issued a short order reciting review of the petition and response.
Key moved to correct error arguing that I.C. § 35-38-9-9(c) requires the court to set a hearing when the prosecutor objects; the court never ruled on the motion and it was deemed denied, prompting this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Key’s expungement petition without a hearing after the prosecutor objected	State: The court may rule on the pleadings (Trial Rule 12(C)) and summarily deny where the petition fails as a matter of law, so no hearing was required	Key: I.C. § 35-38-9-9(c) is mandatory—when prosecutor objects the court shall set the matter for hearing unless the petition is facially deficient under § 9(b)	Court: Reversed. § 35-38-9-9(c) is unambiguous; when the prosecutor objects the petitioner has a statutory/due-process right to a hearing unless summary denial is appropriate under § 9(b). Trial court erred by not setting a hearing

Wall v. Plummer, 13 N.E.3d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo; give words their plain meaning)
Trout v. State, 28 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (expungement statute framework and controlling version is that in effect when petition is filed)
Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 1987) (conviction stigma and rehabilitative purpose of relief)
Taylor v. State, 7 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing mandatory vs. discretionary expungement under statute)
Alden v. State, 983 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (‘‘may’’ is permissive; ‘‘shall’’ is mandatory language creating statutory rights)
Vanderburgh Cnty. Election Bd. v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 833 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (courts may consult dictionaries to determine plain meaning)
Bledsoe v. Fleming, 712 N.E.2d 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (standard for judgment on the pleadings: granted only when nonmoving party cannot succeed under pleadings)
Bowyer v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 798 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (when procedural statute conflicts with Trial Rules, the Trial Rules govern; conflict need not be direct)
Fox Dev., Inc. v. England, 837 N.E.2d 161 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (Rule 12(C) attacks legal sufficiency of pleadings)
Mallory v. State, 15 N.E.3d 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (expungement of Class D felonies may be mandatory when statutory conditions are met)