508 P.3d 449
Okla.2022Background
- S.K.W. was convicted of five drug-related offenses (three in Canadian County in 2001; two in Blaine County in 2002).
- On January 5, 2021, Governor Stitt issued a full pardon covering all five convictions.
- W. filed petitions to expunge her records in both Blaine and Canadian Counties; Blaine County granted expungement, Canadian County denied it.
- The Canadian County trial court relied on Court of Civil Appeals precedent (Holder and Olson) holding §18 does not allow expungement of multiple convictions, and denied W.’s petition.
- W. appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which retained the cause to resolve whether 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 permits expungement of multiple convictions pardoned by the Governor.
- The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding §18’s plain text permits expungement of all convictions pardoned by the Governor, and granted W.’s unopposed appeal-related costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 allows expungement of multiple convictions when the Governor pardons them all | §18(4) plainly authorizes a person who "has received a full pardon by the Governor for the crime for which the person was sentenced" to seek expungement — that includes all crimes pardoned | §18 should be read (per Holder and Olson) to bar expungement where a person has multiple convictions; singular "crime" implies one conviction only | The statute’s plain, unambiguous language permits expungement of all crimes pardoned by the Governor; expungement of all five convictions allowed. |
| Whether Holder and Olson control interpretation | W.: those decisions addressed different statutory versions/subsections and are not dispositive; §18(4) here is unambiguous | State: Holder and Olson interpret §18 to prohibit expunging multiple convictions and should bar relief | Court expressly overruled Holder and Olson to the extent they stand for the proposition that §18 forbids expungement of multiple offenses pardoned by the Governor. |
| Whether rules of statutory construction (liberal construction) affect the outcome | If any ambiguity exists, expungement statutes are remedial and must be construed liberally to afford relief | State relied on plain-language reading informed by precedent | Court found §18 unambiguous; noted that even if ambiguity existed, liberal construction would still support expungement. |
| Whether appeal-related costs should be awarded | W. sought $200 filing fee and $42 transcript fee; request unopposed | State did not object | Court granted the unopposed application for appeal-related costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. State, 219 P.3d 562 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (Court of Civil Appeals held statute did not permit expungement for individuals with multiple convictions)
- Olson v. State, 286 P.3d 296 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (followed Holder in denying expungement for multiple convictions)
- J.M.L. v. State, 433 P.3d 726 (Okla. 2018) (expungement is remedial; statutes construed liberally to afford relief)
- D.A. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, 433 P.3d 727 (Okla. 2018) (confirmed district courts may expunge drug-court dismissals)