John Doe v. State
347 Ga. App. 246
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- In 2003 Doe (age 20) pleaded guilty as a first offender to marijuana possession and received a probated sentence under OCGA § 16-13-2(a); he was discharged without conviction in 2008.
- In 2008 the prosecuting attorney agreed to expunge Doe’s arrest records held by the sheriff; after the 2013 amendments to OCGA § 35-3-37, Doe’s GCIC criminal-history information was restricted under the new law.
- In December 2013 Doe petitioned under OCGA § 35-3-37(m) to seal the criminal-history records maintained by the Bulloch County clerk; the trial court denied the petition in Feb. 2014 and again on the merits in May 2014.
- Doe filed a renewed petition in March 2015 supported by affidavits and testimony that public access to his court file has harmed his financial career; the State presented no contrary evidence at the hearing.
- The trial court expressed a general policy preference for transparency and denied sealing, stating the privacy harm did not clearly outweigh the public interest; Doe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / timeliness of appeal | Doe argued his March 2015 renewed filing was a new petition; his appeal was timely from the Feb. 2016 denial | State argued initial 2014 denials started the appeal clock and appeal was untimely | Court held the March 2015 filing was a distinct second petition; notice of appeal was timely, so appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Procedural filing form / fee requirement | Doe filed the petition in the original criminal case docket | State argued statute required a new action and fee; raised below? no | Court found State waived this challenge by not raising it below |
| Res judicata / prior adjudication | Doe: second petition addressed new/further evidence and was not barred | State: second petition is barred by res judicata | Court refused to consider res judicata because State did not raise it in trial court (waived) |
| Statutory balancing under OCGA § 35-3-37(m) (merits) | Doe: undisputed evidence showed privacy harm (career loss) outweighs public interest; GCIC restriction reduces any public utility of maintaining an accessible court file | State: Doe already received negotiated benefit; transparency and slippery-slope concerns justify denial; evidence insufficient or inadmissible | Court held trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the required statutory balancing; because State offered no evidence, appellate court directed trial court to grant Doe’s petition and seal the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Meinken v. Burgess, 262 Ga. 863 (Ga. 1993) (trial court should balance state’s interest in maintaining arrest records against individual’s harm when considering expungement)
- Mosley v. Lowe, 298 Ga. 363 (Ga. 2016) (2013 amendments expanded individuals’ rights to restrict criminal-history information and lowered barriers compared to prior expungement law)
- Bell v. Figueredo, 259 Ga. 321 (Ga. 1989) (courts construe pleadings by substance not nomenclature)
- Elrod v. State, 222 Ga. App. 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (remand is not required where further consideration is unnecessary; appellate court may direct relief when record is one-sided)
- Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Cottrell, 295 Ga. App. 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (presumption of regularity may be rebutted where record shows otherwise)