State v. Timothy Bobola
168 N.H. 771
| N.H. | 2016Background
- In 2002 Bobola was indicted on two counts of second-degree assault for the same incident; the State entered a nolle prosequi on one count the day trial began and a jury convicted him on the remaining count.
- He was sentenced in 2004 to 2–4 years and ordered to pay restitution (later partially rescinded).
- In 2008 Bobola pleaded guilty to DUI (first offense) and was sentenced to fines, IDIP, and a license suspension.
- In February 2015 Bobola petitioned to annul the assault conviction and the separate assault charge that had been nolled.
- The State opposed annulment based on the 2008 DUI conviction, which was not yet ten years old. The trial court denied the petition; Bobola appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bobola) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a DUI conviction that is not yet eligible for annulment bars annulment of other convictions on the record | The DUI is governed by RSA 265-A:21 and must wait 10 years; under RSA 651:5 VI(b) all convictions on the record must meet timing requirements before any annulment | RSA 651:5 III’s time periods (e.g., 3 years for class B misdemeanors) should apply to his DUI for purposes of annulling other parts of his record | The ten-year requirement for DUI (RSA 265-A:21) applies and prevents annulment of other convictions until timing requirements for all offenses are met; affirm denial |
| Whether the phrase “except as provided in RSA 265-A:21” in RSA 651:5 III alters the waiting period for DUI annulments | N/A (State’s position adopted) | The exception should not replace RSA 651:5 III timing for purposes of other-record annulments; the statutes can coexist harmoniously | The court interprets the phrase as creating an exception that incorporates the 10-year DUI waiting period into RSA 651:5 III, so the longer period controls |
| Whether a charge resolved by nolle prosequi (assigned a separate docket number) qualifies as an independently annulment-eligible “case” under RSA 651:5 II when a companion charge resulted in conviction | The alternative/nolled charge arose from the same case/incident and is not independently eligible where a companion charge produced a conviction | The nolled assault charge had its own docket number and thus is a separate case eligible for annulment under RSA 651:5 II at any time | The two assault charges arose from the same case; RSA 651:5 II does not apply and the nolled charge is not independently annulable while a companion conviction remains ineligible |
| Whether a defendant can avoid annulment fees for a nolled charge when convicted of a companion charge | N/A | Claim that separate docketing should avoid fees under RSA 651:5 IX/II | Court rejects this; statute’s structure shows legislature intended fees where an associated conviction exists |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pinault, 168 N.H. 28 (N.H. 2015) (statutory interpretation of annulment scheme)
- United States v. Howe, 167 N.H. 143 (N.H. 2014) (courts ascribe plain meaning to statutory language)
- Petition of State of N.H. (State v. Milner), 159 N.H. 456 (N.H. 2009) (give effect to all words in a statute)
- State v. Patterson, 145 N.H. 462 (N.H. 2000) (interaction of controlled-substance statute and annulment timing)
- Town of Nottingham v. Bonser, 146 N.H. 418 (N.H. 2001) (separate docket numbers do not necessarily indicate separate cases)
- Forster v. Town of Henniker, 167 N.H. 745 (N.H. 2015) (legislature may amend statute if court interpretation differs from legislative intent)