350 S.W.3d 911
Tenn.2011Background
- Two cases were consolidated for oral argument; defendants pled guilty to one count and the other counts were dismissed.
- Each defendant sought expungement of the dismissed charges; trial courts denied, and petitions for writ of certiorari were filed.
- Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and ordered partial expungement; State appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- Question presented included whether 27-8-106 procedures apply in criminal certiorari appeals and whether conviction on one count precludes expungement of dismissed counts.
- This Court held that the civil-procedural requirements of 27-8-106 do not apply to criminal certiorari petitions and that a conviction on one count does not bar expungement of dismissed counts in a multi-count indictment.
- Consequently, the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals were affirmed and remanded for entry of expungement orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction via certiorari procedures | State contends 27-8-106 applies to civil matters; argues consent to procedures not required in criminal appeals. | K.F. and L.W. rely on criminal-court practice; argue lack of statutory 27-8-106 compliance did not deprive jurisdiction. | 27-8-106 not applicable to criminal certiorari petitions; jurisdiction preserved. |
| Effect of conviction on expungement of dismissed counts | State argues expungement should be precluded across the multi-count indictments when any count results in conviction. | Adler/Liddle framework allows expungement of dismissed counts despite other convictions within the same indictment. | A conviction on one count does not preclude expungement of records for dismissed counts in a multi-count indictment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adler v. State, 92 S.W.3d 397 (Tenn. 2002) (expungement appeals and procedural questions in criminal context)
- Liddle v. State, 929 S.W.2d 415 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (expungement of counts within a multi-count indictment when others are pursued)
- State v. Marshall, 319 S.W.3d 558 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory interpretation of expungement provisions)
- Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Cawood, 330 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2010) (certiorari jurisdiction and procedural requirements in civil context)
- Depew v. King’s, Inc., 276 S.W.2d 728 (Tenn. 1955) (strict construction of statutory procedures for certiorari)