Com. v. Lanciano, M. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S09022-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    MEGAN LANCIANO
    Appellee                  No. 218 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
    Criminal Division at No: CP-23-CR-0007797-2010
    BEFORE: SHOGAN, STABILE, and PLATT,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                                 FILED MAY 24, 2017
    The Commonwealth appeals from the December 16, 2014 order of the
    Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (“trial court”), granting Appellee
    Megan Lanciano’s petition for expungement.       Upon review, we vacate and
    remand.
    On March 21, 2011, following the Commonwealth’s refusal to admit
    Appellee into the accelerated rehabilitative disposition (“ARD”) program,
    Appellee entered into a negotiated guilty plea to driving under the influence
    (“DUI”), highest rate, under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(c).           Pursuant to her
    negotiated guilty plea, Appellee was sentenced to six months of intermediate
    punishment (with the first ten days of electronic home monitoring).
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S09022-17
    On      March    26,   2014,   Appellee    petitioned   the   trial   court   for
    expungement of her 2011 DUI conviction.                The trial court granted her
    petition for expungement. The Commonwealth timely appealed.
    On May 14, 2015, during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court
    issued     an    order    memorializing    the    Commonwealth’s      and     Appellee’s
    stipulation that the trial court had erred in granting Appellee’s petition for
    expungement. On May 24, 2016, the trial court issued an order, rescinding
    its order granting Appellee’s petition for expungement.1
    On appeal,2 the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred as a
    matter of law in granting Appellee’s petition for expungement because she
    “did not satisfy any of the qualifications for expungement enumerated in
    Section 9122,” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122. Commonwealth’s Brief at 4. We agree.
    Addressing the law regarding expungement of criminal records
    generally, our Supreme Court has explained:
    There is a long-standing right in this Commonwealth to
    petition for expungement of a criminal arrest record, a right that
    is an adjunct of due process. Carlacci v. Mazaleski, [] 
    798 A.2d 186
    , 188 ([Pa.] 2002). The decision to grant or deny a
    ____________________________________________
    1
    The trial court’s May 14, 2015 and May 24, 2016 orders have no legal
    effect because they were issued during the pendency of the instant appeal.
    See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (“Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by
    law, a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order
    within 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any
    term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.”)
    (emphasis added). Accordingly, the trial court was without jurisdiction to
    rescind the December 16, 2014 order granting expungement.
    2
    Appellee declined to file a brief on appeal.
    -2-
    J-S09022-17
    petition to expunge rests with the sound discretion of the trial
    court, and we review that court’s decision for abuse of
    discretion. Commonwealth v. Waughtel, 
    999 A.2d 623
    , 624–
    25 (Pa. Super. 2010); Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 
    887 A.2d 1266
    , 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005).
    Judicial analysis and evaluation of a petition to expunge
    depend upon the manner of disposition of the charges against
    the petitioner. When an individual has been convicted of the
    offenses charged, then expungement of criminal history records
    may be granted only under very limited circumstances that are
    set forth by statute. 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122; Hunt v. Pennsylvania
    State Police, [] 
    983 A.2d 627
    , 633 ([Pa.] 2009).
    Commonwealth v. Moto, 
    23 A.3d 989
    , 993 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added).
    “[A] guilty plea is equivalent to a conviction” under Section 9122.
    Commonwealth v. Furrer, 
    48 A.3d 1279
    , 1282 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal
    denied, 
    62 A.3d 378
     (Pa. 2013).
    Section 9122 of the Criminal History Record Information Act provides
    in pertinent part:
    (a) Specific proceedings.--Criminal history record information
    shall be expunged in a specific criminal proceeding when:
    (1) no disposition has been received or, upon request for
    criminal history record information, no disposition has
    been recorded in the repository within 18 months after the
    date of arrest and the court of proper jurisdiction certifies
    to the director of the repository that no disposition is
    available and no action is pending. Expungement shall not
    occur until the certification from the court is received and
    the   director   of     the   repository  authorizes    such
    expungement;
    (2) a court order requires that such nonconviction data be
    expunged; or
    (3) a person 21 years of age or older who has been
    convicted of a violation of section 6308 (relating to
    purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of
    liquor or malt or brewed beverages), which occurred on or
    after the day the person attained 18 years of age, petitions
    the court of common pleas in the county where the
    conviction occurred seeking expungement and the person
    has satisfied all terms and conditions of the sentence
    imposed for the violation, including any suspension of
    -3-
    J-S09022-17
    operating privileges imposed pursuant to section 6310.4
    (relating to restriction of operating privileges).   Upon
    review of the petition, the court shall order the
    expungement of all criminal history record information and
    all administrative records of the Department of
    Transportation relating to said conviction.
    (b) Generally.--Criminal history record information may be
    expunged when:
    (1) An individual who is the subject of the information
    reaches 70 years of age and has been free of arrest or
    prosecution for ten years following final release from
    confinement or supervision.
    (2) An individual who is the subject of the information has
    been dead for three years.
    (3)(i) An individual who is the subject of the
    information petitions the court for the expungement
    of a summary offense and has been free of arrest or
    prosecution for five years following the conviction for
    that offense.
    (ii) Expungement under this paragraph shall only be
    permitted for a conviction of a summary offense.
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(a),(b).
    Instantly, the parties and the trial court agree that Appellee failed to
    plead and prove any subsection of Section 9122 under which she was
    entitled to have her 2011 DUI conviction expunged.3 Accordingly, we agree
    with the Commonwealth that the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s
    petition for expungement.
    ____________________________________________
    3
    In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated “[t]o ensure the
    original grant of expungement is properly vacated, and rescinded, the trial
    court is respectfully requesting the above matter to be remanded to the
    jurisdiction of the undersigned for disposition in accordance with the parties’
    intentions pursuant to the ‘stipulation and order.’” Trial Court Opinion,
    8/8/16, at 2.
    -4-
    J-S09022-17
    Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 5/24/2017
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Lanciano, M. No. 218 EDA 2015

Filed Date: 5/24/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/24/2017