PLUMLEY v. STATE
2017 OK CIV APP 26
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Plumley was arrested July 12, 2012 for DUI and speeding arising from the same incident. He pled no contest to DUI and received a 6‑month continued sentence, successfully completed probation in June 2013. He also pled no contest to the speeding ticket and paid a fine.
- In July 2015 Plumley petitioned to expunge the arrest record and related matters. The State and OSBI objected.
- The State argued Plumley did not qualify under 22 O.S. § 18(8) because, under the version in effect Nov. 1, 2014–Nov. 1, 2016, § 18(8) required that the person "has never been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony." Plumley had a separate misdemeanor speeding conviction.
- The Legislature amended § 18(8) effective Nov. 1, 2016, removing the "never been convicted of a misdemeanor" language so the provision now disqualifies only those with felony convictions.
- The trial court granted expungement; the State appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals considered whether the 2016 remedial amendment applies retroactively and whether Plumley qualifies under the amended statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 amendment to 22 O.S. § 18(8) applies to pending proceedings (retroactivity) | Plumley: the amendment is remedial/procedural and may apply retroactively to pending cases, so he may qualify under the new language | State: relied on the earlier version (in effect when Plumley filed in 2015) that barred petitioners with any prior misdemeanor conviction | Court: The amendment is procedural/remedial, does not affect vested/substantive rights, and applies to this pending case (retroactive application affirmed) |
| Whether Plumley qualifies to petition for expungement under § 18(8) | Plumley: under the amended § 18(8) he is eligible because his only other conviction was a misdemeanor (speeding), and § 18(8) now disqualifies only felony convictions | State: Plumley is ineligible because he has two misdemeanor convictions and the earlier statutory language barred petitioners who "have never been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony" | Court: Under the current (2016) § 18(8), disqualification attaches only for felony convictions; Plumley qualifies and the expungement order is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. State, 219 P.3d 562 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (describing § 18 qualifying showing and burden shift at expungement hearing)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla., 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1990) (procedural/remedial statutes may operate retrospectively if they do not affect vested rights)
- Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (statutes affecting only procedure generally apply to pending actions absent contrary legislative intent)
- Starkey v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013) (ex post facto analysis: laws that disadvantage the accused are prohibited)