Opinion
Case Number: 116533
06-17-2020
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. L.G., Defendant/Petitioner/Appellee, and OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondent, and THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Respondent/Appellant.
Riley W. Mulinix, Joshua K. Hefner, MULINIX GOERKE & MEYER, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Samuel L. Talley, Eugene Bertman, Katie Magee, TTB LAW, Norman, Oklahoma, for Petitioner/Appellee, Kenneth Jordan, Cindy L. Richard, Orval Edwin Jones, CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent/Appellant The City of Oklahoma City.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE STEVEN L. STICE, JUDGE
REVERSED
Riley W. Mulinix, Joshua K. Hefner, MULINIX GOERKE & MEYER, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and
Samuel L. Talley, Eugene Bertman, Katie Magee, TTB LAW, Norman, Oklahoma, for Petitioner/Appellee,
Kenneth Jordan, Cindy L. Richard, Orval Edwin Jones, CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent/Appellant The City of Oklahoma City.
Bay Mitchell, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Respondent/Appellant The City of Oklahoma City (the City) appeals the trial court's order expunging Defendant/Petitioner/Appellee L.G.'s criminal records as it applies to the Oklahoma City Police Department's (OCPD) arrest records. We find that to expunge criminal records, including arrest records, pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2016 §§18-19 one must file a petition to expunge in a new civil action. L.G.'s petition was filed in the underlying criminal case in Cleveland County. The criminal court's order expunging L.G.'s criminal records, including the OCPD's arrest records, pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 was not authorized by law. Furthermore, venue is not proper in Cleveland County as L.G.'s arrest information is located at the OCPD in Oklahoma County. We reverse the Order of Expungement.
Appellee's name has been redacted upon Appellant's request.
¶2 On April 25, 2014, L.G. was arrested by the OCPD in a part of Oklahoma City located in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. L.G. was charged with domestic assault and battery in the District Court of Cleveland County. The charge was later amended to disturbing the peace. L.G. pleaded guilty and received a one year deferred sentence. He successfully completed his deferred sentence and the charge was dismissed September 3, 2015. On June 13, 2017, L.G. filed a Petition for Expungement in the closed criminal case in Cleveland County. He sought to have records of his arrest, charges, and the court disposition sealed pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19. The Cleveland County District Attorney's Office, the OCPD, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation were given notice.
¶3 The City, on behalf of the OCPD, filed a motion to dismiss the petition to expunge as it pertained to the OCPD's arrest records. The City argued venue was improper in Cleveland County, because the arrest records were located in Oklahoma County and, according to 22 O.S. §19(A), venue is proper in Oklahoma County. The City also argued the criminal court's authority is limited to its own court records and does not extend to arrest records. L.G. filed a response and requested sanctions. L.G. argued the venue statute is ambiguous and that the City's interpretation of 22 O.S. §19(A) would result in an absurdity and conflict with other provisions. L.G. argued the City's interpretation would require two expungement proceedings for the same records -- one in Cleveland County for the case file which contains the OCPD's arrest records and a second in Oklahoma County where the original arrest records are stored.
¶4 After a hearing July 25, 2017, the trial court denied the City's motion to dismiss. On October 31, 2017, the trial court entered an Order of Expungement sealing "any record of the arrest, charges, and/or court disposition" made in connection with L.G.'s criminal case and any reference to such records in the public index pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19. The City appeals.
¶5 It is undisputed that L.G. successfully completed his deferred sentence and qualifies for the expungement of his criminal records under 22 O.S. §18(A)(8). The City's appeal revolves around the interpretation of 22 O.S. Supp. 2016 §19(A), which provides: "Any person qualified under Section 18 of this title may petition the district court of the district in which the arrest information pertaining to the person is located for the sealing of all or any part of the record, except basic identification information." Statutory construction presents a question of law which we review de novo. See Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, ¶8, 85 P.3d 841. We have plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal rulings. Id.
A person may have his criminal records and related civil records sealed to the public if he or she was charged with a misdemeanor, the charge was dismissed following the successful completion of a deferred sentence, the person has never been convicted of a felony, no misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against the person, and at least one (1) year has passed since the charge was dismissed. See 22 O.S. Supp. 2016 §§18(A)(8), (B).
¶6 There are two statutes providing for the expungement of criminal records after successfully completing a deferred sentence. Title 22, §18 provides for a general expungement of all criminal records. For purposes of this section, "expungement" is defined as "the sealing of criminal records, as well as any public civil record, involving actions brought by and against the State of Oklahoma arising from the same arrest, transaction or occurrence." 22 O.S. §18(B). This includes arrest records. Section 19 sets forth the procedure for expungement. The other statute addressing the expungement of records after successfully completing a deferred sentence is 22 O.S. §991c. Section 991c provides for a more limited expungement of the criminal court's own records:
C. Upon completion of the conditions of the deferred judgment, and upon a finding by the court that the conditions have been met and all fines, fees, and monetary assessments have been paid as ordered, the defendant shall be discharged without a court judgment of guilt, and the court shall order the verdict or plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere to be expunged from the record and the charge shall be dismissed with prejudice to any further action. The procedure to expunge the record of the defendant shall be as follows:22 O.S. Supp. 2015 §991c(C) (emphasis added).
1. All references to the name of the defendant shall be deleted from the docket sheet;
2. The public index of the filing of the charge shall be expunged by deletion, mark-out or obliteration;
. . .
5. Defendants qualifying under Section 18 of this title may petition the court to have the filing of the indictment and the dismissal expunged from the public index and docket sheet. This section shall not be mutually exclusive of Section 18 of this title.
¶7 The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals have clarified that arrest records can be expunged only by 22 O.S. §§18-19. In State v. Freeman, 1990 OK CR 45, 795 P.2d 110, the parties agreed §991c authorized the expungement of the petitioner's guilty pleas. Id. ¶7, at 112. The issue was whether §991c authorized the expungement of criminal arrest records. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals held "there is absolutely no language in [§991c] authorizing the expunction of criminal arrest records. Expunction of such records, under limited circumstances, is authorized only by 22 O.S. Supp. 1987 §18, and this section [§991] does not authorize expunction of arrest records following completion of a deferred sentence." Id. ¶9, at 112. The Court went on to note "the legislature has specifically provided for the expunction of arrest records by enacting § 18" and found the criminal court's order expunging the arrest records pursuant to §991c was unauthorized by law. Id. ¶10, at 112. The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed this issue in City of Lawton v. Moore, 1993 OK 168, 868 P.2d 690. In Lawton, the petitioner's guilty plea was expunged pursuant to 22 O.S. §991c. See id. ¶2, at 691. The petitioner complained the records of his arrest also should have been expunged. Id. ¶10, at 693. The Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed and, relying on Freeman, interpreted §991c as not authorizing the expungement of arrest records. Id. ¶¶10-11, at 693. According to these cases, the district court which sentenced the petitioner and dismissed the charges in the underlying criminal case cannot expunge arrest records under 22 O.S. §991c. Arrest records must be expunged pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19.
¶8 Here, the first issue on appeal is whether a petition to expunge criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S. §18 (A)(8) and §19 may be filed in the underlying criminal case or it must be filed in a new civil action. The City relies on Freeman and Lawton to support its argument that the criminal court's jurisdiction is limited to its own court records and does not extend to arrest records. The City argues a petition to expunge arrest records pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 cannot be filed in the underlying criminal case and that the petitioner must file a new civil action. L.G. argues the District Court of Cleveland County's local practice of allowing an expungement pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 to proceed in the underlying criminal case is not prohibited by case law or statute and 22 O.S. §19(A) does not require the filing of a new civil action.
¶9 Title 22, §19(A) provides: "Any person qualified under Section 18 of this title may petition the district court of the district in which the arrest information pertaining to the person is located for the sealing of all or any part of the record, except basic identification information." 22 O.S. §19(A) (emphasis added). The issue is whether the language "the district court" means the petitioner may file a petition to expunge in the district court that sentenced the petitioner and dismissed the charges in the underlying criminal case or it means the petitioner must file the petition to expunge in a new civil action.
¶10 The fundamental purpose of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. See Humphries v. Lewis, 2003 OK 12, ¶7, 67 P.3d 333. If the language is clear and unambiguous, this Court must apply the plain meaning. See id. However, when the legislative intent cannot be determined from the statutory language due to ambiguity or conflict, rules of statutory construction should be employed. See Keating v. Edmondson, 2001 OK 110, ¶8, 37 P.3d 882.
¶11 We look to other relevant provisions to determine the meaning of the term "the district court" as used in 22 O.S. §19(A). "Intent is ascertained from the whole act in light of its general purpose and objective considering relevant provisions together to give full force and effect to each." World Publ'g Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49, ¶7, 32 P.3d 829 (footnotes omitted).
When construing a statute, the Court does not limit itself to the consideration of a single word or phrase. Rather, we look to the various provisions of the relevant legislative scheme to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. Nevertheless, the plain and ordinary meaning of the language utilized is the standard for determining intent.Id. (footnotes omitted). Two provisions shed light on the legislative intent behind the phrase "the district court." Subsection (C) provides that an order granting or denying an expungement pursuant to §§18-19 is appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort for civil cases. See 22 O.S. §19(C). Section 991c provides that the expungement of the verdict or plea, references to the defendant's name, the indictment, and the dismissal from the docket sheet and public index pursuant to §991c "shall not be mutually exclusive of Section 18 of this title." 22 O.S. §991c(C)(5). This suggests the Legislature intended for a §18 expungement to be a separate proceeding.
¶12 We find 22 O.S. §19(A) is not ambiguous when read with other relevant provisions. To have criminal records, including arrest records, expunged pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19, the petitioner must file the petition to expunge in a new civil action. Unlike a §991c expungement, a §18 expungement may not proceed through the underlying criminal case. According to 22 O.S. §991c, Freeman, and Lawton, the criminal court's authority is limited to expunging its own court records. The District Court of Cleveland County's local practice of allowing a petition to expunge pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 to be filed in the underlying criminal case is contrary to law. The expungement of L.G.'s criminal records, including the OCPD's arrest records, pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 was not authorized by law. We reverse the Order of Expungement.
¶13 The other issue on appeal is whether venue is proper in Cleveland County. A petition to expunge criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 is to be filed in "the district court of the district in which the arrest information pertaining to the person is located ." 22 O.S. §19(A) (emphasis added). We find this language is also clear and unambiguous. It is undisputed L.G.'s arrest information is located at the Oklahoma City Police Department at 700 Colcord Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in Oklahoma County. Therefore, venue is proper in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
The District Court of Oklahoma County's local court rules conform with our interpretation of 22 O.S. §19(A). Local Court Rule No. 41(D) for the Seventh Judicial and Twenty-Sixth Administrative Districts comprised of Oklahoma and Canadian Counties requires that "[a]ll requests for expungements made pursuant to Title 22 O.S. §§ 18, 19, & 19a, shall be made by Petition and filed as a civil action, subject to civil fees and assessments[.]"
¶14 In summary, the Cleveland County criminal court may expunge its own court records pursuant to 22 O.S. §991c. But, to have other criminal records, including the OCPD's arrest records, expunged pursuant to 22 O.S. §18(A)(8) and §19, L.G. must file a petition to expunge in a new civil action in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
On September 22, 2017, the Cleveland County criminal court entered a separate order expunging L.G.'s entire Cleveland County court record pursuant to 22 O.S. §991c. That order has not been appealed. The City is only concerned with the expungement of the OCPD's arrest records pursuant to 22 O.S. §§18-19 and does not question the Cleveland County criminal court's authority to expunge its own court records pursuant to 22 O.S. §991c. Our decision today does not disturb the Cleveland County criminal court's expungement of its own court records.
We are sympathetic to L.G.'s concern that requiring two expungement proceedings is inefficient and costly to the petitioner. However, we cannot reconcile 22 O.S. §19, 22 O.S. §991c, and case law to find that one proceeding in the underlying criminal case is sufficient to expunge the arrest records located in Oklahoma County. Expungement procedures are a matter of public policy within the purview of the Legislature. Recently, the Legislature has been focused on criminal justice reform. Now may be the time for the Legislature to streamline the expungement procedures.
¶15 REVERSED.
SWINTON, J., and GOREE, C.J. (sitting by designation), concur.