PLUMLEY v. STATE
2017 OK CIV APP 26
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner (Plumley) was arrested July 12, 2012 for DUI and speeding arising from the same incident; he pled no contest to both.
- DUI charge resulted in a 6-month continued sentence successfully completed June 6, 2013; speeding resulted in a fine.
- Petitioner filed a petition to expunge all records relating to the arrest in July 2015; the State objected.
- The State relied on 22 O.S. § 18 as in effect Nov. 1, 2014–Nov. 1, 2016, which required that the person "has never been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony" to qualify under § 18(8).
- The Legislature amended § 18(8) effective Nov. 1, 2016, removing the phrase "has never been convicted of a misdemeanor," so § 18(8) now bars only prior felony convictions.
- The trial court granted expungement; on appeal the Court of Civil Appeals had to decide whether the 2016 remedial amendment applies to petitions filed earlier and whether Petitioner qualifies under the amended statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 2016 amendment to pending expungement petition | 2016 amendment should apply so Petitioner qualifies because his prior conviction was a misdemeanor, not a felony | The earlier version (in effect when petition filed) controls and bars relief because Petitioner had another misdemeanor conviction | Court: § 18 is remedial/procedural; 2016 amendment applies retrospectively to pending matters and thus governs this case |
| Ex post facto / substantive-rights challenge | N/A (Plumley argued entitlement under current statute) | Amendment cannot be applied if it disadvantages accused or alters substantive rights | Court: No ex post facto problem; amendment relaxes constraints (benefits Petitioner) and does not affect vested substantive rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. State, 219 P.3d 562 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (standard for § 18 prima facie showing and burden shift)
- Steidley v. Cmty. Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 383 P.3d 780 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (characterizing expungement statutes as remedial)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla., 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1990) (remedial/procedural statutes may operate retrospectively)
- Starkey v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 305 P.3d 1004 (Okla. 2013) (ex post facto principle: law penalizes only if it disadvantages accused)
- Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977) (presumption that procedural statutes apply to pending actions absent intent to the contrary)
- Cole v. Silverado Foods, Inc., 78 P.3d 542 (Okla. 2003) (remedial procedural statutes generally apply retroactively to pending proceedings)