W.R. v. State of Indiana
87 N.E.3d 30
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1999 W.R. was convicted of two felonies for dealing drugs; he completed his sentence.
- In 2007 W.R. was convicted of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (OWI).
- In December 2016 W.R. petitioned to expunge the two felonies, the 2007 misdemeanor, and an arrest that did not result in conviction.
- At the January 2017 hearing the State presented no evidence or position; the court granted expungement of the misdemeanor and the non‑conviction arrest but denied expungement of the felony convictions.
- The court explained the felony convictions’ nature (drug dealing) could be relevant to employers or businesses deciding to exclude persons from premises; the parties agreed W.R. met the statutory eligibility prerequisites for expungement.
- W.R. appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying expungement of the felonies; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying expungement of W.R.’s felony convictions | W.R.: denial was an abuse because he met statutory requirements and Cline compels relief | State: Cline is distinguishable; trial court properly exercised discretion considering nature of offenses and W.R.’s intervening misdemeanor | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed because court permissibly weighed the convictions’ nature and prior misdemeanor distinguishes this case from Cline |
Key Cases Cited
- Tongate v. State, 954 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) ("may" in statute conveys discretion)
- Key v. State, 48 N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court has discretion on expungement petitions)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Cline v. State, 61 N.E.3d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (reversal where trial court’s reasoning was troubling and ambiguous)
- Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 (Ind. 1999) (denial of discretionary relief is not necessarily an abuse of discretion)
- Jones v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate court must not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary rulings)