Kimbrell v. State
2016 Ark. App. 17
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1995 Trent Kimbrell pleaded no contest to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and was placed on four years’ probation under Act 346 (first-time-offender expungement provision).
- While on probation the State filed a 1996 petition to revoke based on drug charges and Kimbrell’s admission of marijuana use; a revocation hearing was scheduled but does not appear in the record.
- In January 1999 the circuit court entered an order waiving supervision fees and stating Kimbrell had “completed his term of probation”; the revocation petition remained pending and was ultimately nolle prossed in April 2000.
- In 2014 Kimbrell was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to dismiss, arguing his 1995 conviction should have been automatically expunged upon completion of probation, and separately petitioned to seal the 1995 record.
- The circuit court denied dismissal and denied the petition to seal, reasoning that (1) expungement was not automatic absent a defendant’s petition and (2) Kimbrell violated probation by using drugs while on supervision.
- Kimbrell appealed, arguing the statute required automatic expungement and that he had fulfilled probation; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-303 required automatic expungement upon fulfillment of probation (as enacted in 1995) | Kimbrell: the statute’s mandatory phrasing (“the court shall enter an appropriate order”) imposed a ministerial duty on the court to expunge without any defendant petition | State: statute should not impose a duty to monitor and auto-expunge; later amendments requiring a petition show intent that defendants must initiate sealing | Court: statute (as enacted) was mandatory and could require ministerial court action; trial court erred in holding expungement required an affirmative petition at that time |
| Whether Kimbrell fulfilled the terms and conditions of probation, making him eligible for expungement | Kimbrell: he completed probation; the 1999 order saying he “completed his term of probation” shows eligibility | State: Kimbrell admitted marijuana use and was charged with drug offenses; a revocation petition was filed—he did not comply with probation conditions | Court: Kimbrell did not fulfill conditions (admitted drug use and revocation petition); the 1999 fee-waiver meaningfully denotes only completion of the time term, not fulfillment of conditions; expungement not warranted |
| Whether denial of petition to seal was error and whether 1995 conviction could support the 2014 felon-in-possession charge | Kimbrell: sealing should be granted if expungement was automatic or he completed probation | State: sealing properly denied due to unfulfilled conditions; conviction remains valid | Court: sealing denial affirmed; 1995 conviction valid basis for 2014 charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Irvin v. State, 301 Ark. 416 (construing mandatory expungement language as a ministerial duty of the state actor)
- State v. Ross, 344 Ark. 364 (statutory “shall” discharge/dismiss language makes expungement ministerial)
- Edwards v. State, 70 Ark. App. 127 (statute in effect at time of sentencing controls the sentence)