Osgood, Qaiymah, and Fritz v. State, 310 A.3d 415

In 2019 Delaware enacted the Adult Expungement Reform Act and in 2021 the Clean Slate Act, expanding expungement eligibility and creating an automatic expungement system for certain convictions.
The statutes condition mandatory and discretionary expungement, in part, on the petitioner having “no prior or subsequent convictions.”
Three petitioners sought expungement of Delaware convictions but each had prior or subsequent misdemeanor convictions in other states; the State opposed expungement on that basis.
A Superior Court Commissioner denied the petitions; the Superior Court affirmed, reasoning that “no prior or subsequent convictions” includes out-of-state convictions and that §4372(a) (“applies to all criminal cases brought and convictions entered in a court in this State”) was merely jurisdictional.
On appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court the majority held that “prior or subsequent convictions” refers only to convictions entered in Delaware courts, reversed the Superior Court, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory phrase “no prior or subsequent convictions” includes out-of-state convictions	Petitioners: phrase must be read in context; §4372(a) confines the expungement scheme to convictions entered in Delaware, so out-of-state convictions do not disqualify eligibility	State/Superior Ct.: phrase is unqualified and thus covers convictions from any jurisdiction; §4372(a) only limits the scope of records a Delaware court may expunge	Court (Majority): “prior or subsequent convictions” is limited to Delaware convictions; reversed and remanded
Whether §4372(a)’s “in this State” language is definitional (limits disqualifying convictions to Delaware) or mere jurisdictional statement	Petitioners: §4372(a) shows the statutory scheme is Delaware‑centric and therefore eligibility references should be limited to in‑state convictions	State/Dissent: §4372(a) delineates the statute’s coverage but does not qualify the unqualified term “convictions”; convictions have a general definition (§222) without geographic limit	Court (Majority): §4372(a) informs the meaning of eligibility provisions and supports limiting disqualifying convictions to those entered in Delaware; Dissent disagreed

Fuller v. State, 104 A.3d 817 (Del. 2014) (statutory context controls the meaning of “conviction” for expungement statutes)
Delaware Solid Waste Auth. v. Delaware Dep’t of Nat. Res. & Env’t Control, 250 A.3d 94 (Del. 2021) (standard: de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 227 A.3d 102 (Del. 2020) (construe statutes to avoid surplusage)
Doroshow v. Nanticoke Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 36 A.3d 336 (Del. 2012) (courts give statutes their reasonable and suitable meaning)
Hudson Farms, Inc. v. McGrellis, 620 A.2d 215 (Del. 1993) (presume legislature acted with awareness of existing law)
Valentine v. State, 207 A.3d 166 (Del. 2019) (recognition that courts may rely on out‑of‑state convictions in other statutory contexts)