Mindy M. Cline v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 341
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2003 Cline was convicted of Forgery and in 2004 of Dealing in Methamphetamine; she petitioned for expungement on October 16, 2015.
- The State did not oppose the petition and presented no evidence at the November 12, 2015 hearing.
- Cline testified she met statutory prerequisites: required waiting periods elapsed, no pending charges, restitution/costs satisfied, and no convictions in the prior eight years; she showed employment and education advancements and loss of a management job due to her record.
- The trial judge took the matter under advisement but expressed strong negative views about meth offenses and concern that Cline had only been off supervision for about five years.
- On November 13, 2015 the court denied expungement, citing the nature and severity of offenses and the relatively short time since release from supervision.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by relying on non-statutory factors and failing to give effect to the remedial expungement scheme; one judge dissented and would remand for correction/clarification about the number of convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an unopposed expungement petition after statutory prerequisites were met | Cline: denial relied on non‑statutory considerations (type of offense, short time since supervision) and possibly an erroneous belief about multiple convictions; evidence supported expungement | State: trial court acted within discretion; appellate court should not reweigh credibility or substitute judgment | Court of Appeals: reversal — trial court abused discretion by relying on impermissible factors and ignoring remedial statutory purpose; remanded for entry of expungement |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 7 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. Ct. App.) (legislature intended expungement statutes to give qualified individuals a second chance)
- Brown v. State, 947 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App.) (expungement statutes are remedial and should be liberally construed)
- Key v. State, 48 N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App.) (use of "may" in expungement statute confers judicial discretion)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 (Ind.) (denial of discretionary relief is not necessarily an abuse of discretion even if grantable)