STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. S.J. (15-09-2357, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2019 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3229-18T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.J.,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Argued September 11, 2019 – Decided September 19, 2019
Before Judges Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 15-09-2357.
Nicole Lynn Campellone, Assistant Prosecutor, argued
the cause for appellant (Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic
County Prosecutor, attorney; Nicole Lynn Campellone,
of counsel and on the briefs).
Neal Eugene Wiesner argued the cause for respondent
(Wiesner Law Firm, attorneys; Neal Eugene Wiesner,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
The State appeals from the April 1, 2019 order denying its motion to
vacate an expungement order entered in June 2018. The State claims the
expungement order was granted contrary to statutory law. We agree and reverse.
Defendant was charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual contact
and harassment. He was acquitted of certain counts and additional counts were
dismissed; still other counts resulted in a hung jury. A couple of months later,
a number of other charges and thirty-six additional disorderly persons offenses
pending against defendant were dismissed. A dismissal order was signed by the
trial court on June 13, 2018 and on June 21, 2018, another order was signed sua
sponte, granting defendant an expungement. The State indicates it was not
notified of the expungement order until the end of November 2018. It moved to
vacate that expungement order and its application was denied by order dated
April 1, 2019, leading to the instant appeal.
On appeal, the State raises the following contentions:
POINT ONE:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
STATE'S MOTION TO VACATE THE
EXPUNGEMENT ORDER BECAUSE THE
EXPUNGEMENT ORDER WAS ORIGINALLY
IMPROPERLY GRANTED UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:52-
6(a).
A-3229-18T1
2
POINT TWO:
SINCE THE PETITIONER FAILED TO APPLY FOR
THE EXPUNGEMENT AT THE PROPER TIME, IF
THE PETITIONER WISHES TO APPLY FOR AN
EXPUNGEMENT, HE MUST FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(b).
Defendant concedes he did not apply for an expungement when his
charges were dismissed. However, he insists there was no need to formally
request the expungement. Defendant claims it would be "pointless" to require a
defendant in the Law Division to petition for an expungement after dismissal or
acquittal because of the mandatory language in N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a) compelling
a Superior Court judge to order the expungement of all records and information
relating to the arrest or charge "upon receipt of an application from the person."
The defense posits that under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a), only a municipal court
defendant would need to apply for an expungement because a Superior Court
judge would have no knowledge of dismissals, acquittals or discharges occurring
in municipal court unless notified by a petitioner.
The State counters that because defendant did not seek an expungement
when his charges were dismissed or he was acquitted on other charges, he must
pursue expungement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(b). N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(b), unlike
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a), does not mandate that an order of expungement be granted
A-3229-18T1
3
upon the petitioner's application. Therefore, whether subparagraph (a) or (b) of
the statute applies in the instant matter is significant.
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a) plainly states:
When a person has been arrested or held to answer for
a crime (or) disorderly persons offense . . . and
proceedings against the person were dismissed, the
person was acquitted, or the person was discharged . . .
the Superior Court shall, at the time of dismissal,
acquittal, or discharge, or in any case set forth in
paragraph (1) [1] of this subsection upon receipt of an
application from the person, order the expungement
....
[(Emphases added).]
However, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(b) provides an option for expungement when
a defendant does not apply for an expungement of an arrest or charge at the time
of dismissal, acquittal or discharge. In fact, this section of the statute allows for
a defendant to apply for an expungement "at any time following the disposition
of the proceedings" by petitioning the court. If a defendant seeks an
expungement under subparagraph (b), the petition need not be granted. Instead,
1
Under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a), paragraph 1 of subsection (a) applies to
proceedings which occurred in municipal court.
A-3229-18T1
4
the State retains the right to argue the expungement should be denied because
the need for the availability of the records outweighs the petitioner's interest for
expungement.
Although defendant insists only a municipal defendant must submit an
application for an expungement, his argument is not persuasive. Administrative
Directive #02-16, issued by The Administrative Office of Courts (Directive),
refers specifically to Municipal and Superior Court proceedings and
distinguishes between the two courts when referencing expungements under
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a)(1) and 2C:52-6(a), respectively. Section II.A.2. of this
Directive confirms that where a "person was discharged without a conviction or
finding of guilt on or after April 18, 2016 in the Superior Court, that court must,
upon application by the person, order the expungement of all records relating to
the arrest or charge at the time of the dismissal, acquittal, or discharge. See
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6a." (emphasis added). Of course, judges have an affirmative
obligation to adhere to administrative directives. State v. Morales, 390 N.J.
Super. 470, 472 (App. Div. 2007). As defendant made no application for an
expungement when his charges were dismissed or when he was acquitted of
other charges, he was not entitled to relief under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a). His
A-3229-18T1
5
remaining path for expungement, should he choose to pursue it, is under
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(b).
The balance of defendant's arguments do not warrant discussion in a
written opinion. Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Reversed. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3229-18T1
6