Com. v. Muhammad, K. ( 2016 )

J. A03001/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
KENAN MUHAMMAD, :
:
Appellant : No. 321 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order January 14, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Municipal Court No(s).: MC-51-CR-0017300-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 08, 2016
Appellant, Kenan Muhammad, appeals from the order entered January
14, 2015, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying
without prejudice his motion to expunge his non-conviction data. After
careful review, we affirm.
On May 25, 2014, Appellant was charged with a DUI. On October 10
10, 2014, after numerous continuances, the charges were dismissed for lack
of prosecution.
On October 15, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion for Expungement,
averring that he works as a part-time parking employee at a country club
where he is trying to get full-time employment but that his employer is
questioning his DUI arrest record. The trial court held a hearing on the
J. A03001/16
motion and, on January 14, 2015, denied the motion, noting that the statute
of limitations for the DUI had not yet run.
Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue:
Did the Trial Court below commit an error of law when it failed to
balance the competing interests of the [P]etitioner and the
Commonwealth when the Petitioner sought expungement of his
criminal record[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
his Motion for Expungement because “the Commonwealth did not present
any evidence at the Motion hearing other than the expungement petition
was filed too soon after dismissal.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. He contends
that the trial court did not appropriately consider the factors listed in
Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981).
We review a decision to grant or deny a request for expungement of
an arrest record for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Hanna,
964 A.2d 923, 925 (Pa. Super. 2009). The trial court must balance “the
individual’s right to be free from harm attendant to maintenance of the
arrest record against the Commonwealth’s interest in preserving such
records.” Wexler, supra at 879. The Commonwealth must prove a
compelling interest in retention of the disputed record. Commonwealth v.
Drummond, 694 A.2d 1111, 1113 (Pa.Super. 1997).
-2-
J. A03001/16
18 Pa.C.S. § 9122 governs expungement of criminal history record
information. Under Section 9122, a defendant acquitted of a crime “is
generally entitled to automatic expungement of the charges for which he
was acquitted.” Commonwealth v. Hanna, 964 A.2d 923, 925 (Pa.Super.
2009). However, this Court has held that expungement is ”only proper in
cases where acquittal is consistent with a finding of real innocence and is not
a result of legal technicalities unrelated to questions of guilt or innocence.”
Commonwealth v. Butler, 672 A.2d 806, 809 (Pa.Super. 1996).
Appellant cites Wexler, supra, a case in which the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court recognized a non-exhaustive list of factors a trial court
should consider before making its expungement determination. These
factors include “the strength of the Commonwealth’s case against the
petitioner, the reasons the Commonwealth gives for wishing to retain the
records, the petitioner’s age, criminal record, and employment history, the
length of time that has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to
expunge, and the specific adverse consequences the petitioner may endure
should expunction be denied.” Id. at 879. In addition, the statute of
limitations may be considered in determining when expungement is
appropriate. See Drummond, supra at 1114 (affirming the denial of
expungement where the statute of limitations had not yet run).
-3-
J. A03001/16
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court provided the following
well-reasoned and thorough analysis to support its denial of Appellant’s
Motion for Expungement:
In the instant case, the Court properly exercised its discretion in
denying Appellant’s petition. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion,
the Commonwealth did, in fact, articulate an argument for
denying expungement. The Commonwealth stated an interest in
refiling charges, and an interest in maintaining the records in the
event of its decision to so refile. Moreover, the Commonwealth’s
interest in potentially refiling charges stems from the recency of
Appellant’s arrest at the time of the hearing. Appellant was
arrested only eight months prior to the expungement hearing
and the case was discharged only three months prior.
Furthermore, Appellant’s case was discharged because one
officer was sick and the other failed to appear. This was a
technicality that prevented culpability from being determined.
See Commonwealth v. Chacker, 467 A.2d 386, 390 (Pa.
Super. 1983) (citing Commonwealth v. Rose, 397 A.2d 1243,
1244 (Pa. 1979).
The Court balanced these factors against the fact that Appellant
was currently employed at the time of his hearing and that his
employers were “questioning” his record when considering him
for full-time employment. However, Appellant made no
assertion that he had actually been denied full-time employment
because of his record. The Court found that the balance slightly
favored the Commonwealth at this point in time because the
Commonwealth has a strong interest in maintaining the record of
a case it is considering to refile. The Court thus dismissed the
Motion without prejudice and welcomed Appellant to refile in the
future in the event that the Commonwealth did not ultimately
refile the matter; presumably, this would be two years from the
time of arrest under the relevant statute of limitations, 42
[Pa.C.S.A.] § 5552[.]
Trial Court Opinion, dated 7/31/15, at 3-4.
The trial court considered each of Appellant’s concerns, including that
Appellant worked at the time of the hearing and that his employers
-4-
J. A03001/16
questioned his record when considering him for full-time employment.
Although the trial court opinion noted Appellant’s concerns following the brief
expungement hearing, the trial court reasonably concluded “that the balance
slightly favored the Commonwealth at this point in time[.]” Trial Court
Opinion at 3. The trial court appropriately balanced the relevant Wexler
factors, and the trial court properly relied on the “recency” of the arrest and
discharge by considering the statute of limitations as part of the Wexler
analysis. See Drummond, supra at 1114 (affirming the denial of
expungement where the statute of limitations had not yet run and the lower
court relied on this factor in its Wexler analysis).
Based upon our review of the record, we discern no abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Order denying Appellant’s
Motion for Expungement without prejudice.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/8/2016
-5-