John Doe v. State, A21A1750

In 2010–2011 Doe was charged with two felony counts of habitual violator (operating without a license). In August 2011 he pleaded nolo contendere to a misdemeanor habitual violator as part of a negotiated plea (probation, fine, community service); the second charge was eventually nolle prossed.
On February 5, 2021 Doe filed pro se a form motion to restrict and seal records under OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(1) and (m), asserting the records prevent employment in the banking/investment industry and must be restricted or sealed.
At the April 12, 2021 hearing Doe orally sought relief under the newly amended OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(4)(A) (effective Jan 1, 2021), arguing his nolo plea is a conviction and he meets the statutory requirements for a (j)(4)(A) petition; the State argued (j)(1) applied but did not object to proceeding on (j)(4).
The trial court denied relief, ruling that a nolo contendere plea is not a conviction for purposes of (j)(4)(A) and that (j)(1) controlled because the misdemeanor was a lesser-included offense of the original felony; the court also denied reconsideration.
Doe appealed. The Court of Appeals held Doe properly amended to seek (j)(4)(A) relief (the State did not object) and reversed, holding a nolo contendere plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(4)(A), and remanded for the required balancing of Doe’s privacy harms against the public interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could consider relief under OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(4)(A) though Doe’s form petition cited (j)(1)	Doe: He raised (j)(4)(A) at the hearing and effectively amended; State proceeded without objection	State: Relief must be limited to the four corners of the petition; oral amendment was ineffective and reconsideration was a second petition barred by a two-year waiting period	Court: Doe properly amended at hearing and the State did not object; trial court could consider (j)(4)(A) relief
Whether a plea of nolo contendere is a "conviction" under OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(4)(A)	Doe: Nolo plea resulted in adjudication and is a conviction for purposes of (j)(4)(A)	State/Trial court: Nolo plea is not a conviction and therefore ineligible for (j)(4)(A) relief	Court: Nolo contendere constitutes a conviction; trial court erred by refusing to apply (j)(4)(A) and must perform the statutory balancing test
Whether Doe was entitled to relief under OCGA § 35-3-37 (j)(1) (misdemeanor not a lesser-included offense)	Doe: (not pursued on appeal; sought relief under (j)(4)(A))	State: (j)(1) controls and excludes lesser-included misdemeanor pleas	Court: Because Doe properly sought (j)(4)(A) relief, the court did not address (j)(1) ruling on appeal

State v. Pitts, 199 Ga. App. 493 (1991) (plea of nolo contendere constitutes a conviction)
State v. Rocco, 259 Ga. 463 (1989) (nolo contendere treated as a conviction for sentencing and adjudicative purposes)
Doe v. State, 347 Ga. App. 246 (2018) (discussing balancing test and standards for record restriction)
Roberts v. Windsor Credit Svcs., 301 Ga. App. 393 (2009) (appellate rule allowing appeal from initial order and subsequent rulings such as denial of reconsideration)