IN THE MATTER OF EXPUNGEMENT
OF RECORDS OF R.N. granting juvenile expungement
Petitioner-Respondent.
__________________________________________
|
Submitted January 31, 2012 - Decided
Before Judges Payne and Hayden.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County.
John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor,
attorney for appellant (Vered Adoni, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM
The State of New
Jersey appeals the February 16, 2011 order granting the expungement petition of
R.N. The State contends that petitioner
did not qualify for expungement of his juvenile adjudications of delinquency
and his adult third-degree criminal conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1
and N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2. We disagree
and affirm.
The record reveals
that petitioner R.N., who was born in 1981, sought to have his entire juvenile
record and adult criminal conviction and arrest record expunged. Between January 10, and November 1, 1998,
petitioner was arrested on five separate occasions and charged with several
offenses for which he was later adjudged delinquent. Specifically, he was charged with conduct
which, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree aggravated
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1); a disorderly persons offense of hazing, N.J.S.A.
2C:40-3a; a petty disorderly persons offense of disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A.
2C:33-2a; a petty disorderly persons offense of harassment, N.J.S.A.
2C:33-4a; and a municipal ordinance curfew violation.
On July 20, 2000,
petitioner, then eighteen years old, was arrested and charged with
second-degree employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-6; second-degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS)
within 500 feet of public property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1; third-degree
distribution of CDS within 1000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-7; and third-degree distribution of CDS, specifically Ketamin, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-5b(13). On November 16, 2001,
petitioner pled guilty to third-degree distribution of CDS, and the three other
charges were dismissed. Petitioner was
sentenced to two years probation and successfully completed his sentence on
November 19, 2003. In 2004 and 2009,
petitioner was arrested and charged with simple assault, and both charges were later
dismissed.
Meanwhile,
petitioner attended and graduated from college and then law school. He found employment and had an outstanding
work record. In 2009, he passed the New
York State bar examination.
In September 2010,
petitioner filed a petition seeking expungement of his entire juvenile and
adult record. The State opposed the
petition. At the expungement hearing, Judge
Lois Lipton, relying on N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2c(3) and N.J.S.A.
2C:52-4.1b, found that petitioner met all the requirements of the respective
parts of the law and granted the expungement request. By order dated February 16, 2011,
petitioner's entire record, including five juvenile adjudications of
delinquency, one adult third-degree criminal conviction and all juvenile and
adult arrests resulting in dismissals, was ordered expunged.
The State
appealed, arguing that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1a, petitioner's
record of five juvenile adjudications of delinquency and one adult criminal
conviction should not have been expunged.[1]
The State relies on its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1a, which
states in pertinent part, "[f]or purposes of expungement, any act which
resulted in a juvenile being adjudged a delinquent shall be classified as if
that act had been committed by an adult."
Thus, the State argues, petitioner's adjudications of delinquency must
be classified as their adult equivalent - a criminal conviction, a disorderly
persons offense, two petty disorderly persons offenses, and an ordinance
violation.
N.J.S.A.
2C:52-2 prohibits expungement of a criminal conviction if a petitioner has been
convicted of any prior or subsequent crimes. Similarly, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-3
prohibits expungement of disorderly persons offenses if a person has been
convicted of a prior or subsequent crime or of three additional disorderly
persons or petty disorderly persons offenses. Consequently, the State contends, neither
petitioner's adult criminal conviction nor his juvenile adjudications could be
expunged because he has five adjudications of delinquency that under N.J.S.A.
2C:52-4.1a constitute prior or subsequent crimes or offenses. Finding that the State misinterprets the expungement
statute, we disagree.
In 1979, the
Legislature adopted a comprehensive expungement statute, L. 1979, c.
178, codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32. Juvenile adjudications were not covered by
the 1979 Act. See In re State
of N.J. v. W.J.A., 173 N.J. Super. 19 (Law Div. 1980) (expunging an
adult conviction but denying expungement of juvenile adjudications as they are not
considered "crimes"). The
Legislature swiftly enacted L. 1980, c. 163, which provided two
alternative methods to expunge delinquency adjudications. In the Matter of the Expungement of J.B.,
426 N.J. Super. 496, 502 (App. Div. 2012). As we recently explained,
First, expungement could be obtained by treating the
delinquency adjudications as if they were adult convictions and subjecting the
petition to the same provisions that governed the expungement of adult
convictions.
. . . .
Second, mirroring the statute governing sealing, but
extending the relevant waiting periods, the statute permitted a petitioner to
expunge his or her entire juvenile record, if the petitioner met a five-part
test, including that five years had elapsed since discharge from custody or supervision
and the petitioner had not committed a crime or offense or been adjudged a
delinquent or in need of supervision for five years.
[Id. at 504-05.]
In construing statutory language,
"our 'overriding goal must be to determine the Legislature's
intent.'" Hubbard v. Reed,
168 N.J. 387, 392 (2001) (quoting State, Dep't of Law & Pub.
Safety v. Gonzalez, 142 N.J. 618, 627 (1995)). The purpose of the 1980 amendments was to
expand the expungement law so that it covered juvenile adjudications. J.B.,
supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 509 (citing Senate Judiciary
Committee, Statement to S.1266 (June 9, 1980)). However, there is no indication whatsoever
that in making expungement of juvenile records possible, the Legislature intended
to make expungement of adult convictions more difficult. Id. at 508. Accordingly, as we have recently concluded, the
relevant language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1(a) "should be construed to
apply only to expungements of juvenile adjudications authorized by N.J.S.A.
2C:52-4.1(a)." Ibid.
As a result, the State's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1a
is incorrect in deeming juvenile adjudications of delinquency the equivalent of
disqualifying adult convictions for purposes of determining, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2C:52-2, whether a petitioner had prior or subsequent convictions. The State's proposed outcome would severely
limit the ability of a person, who otherwise is eligible for expungement, to
have his or her record expunged, based on his or her youthful behavior that was
not a crime at the time. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-23. See also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super.
154, 170 (App. Div.) ("juvenile adjudication does not constitute a
crime."), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999); State in
Interest of K.P., 167 N.J. Super. 290, 294 (App. Div. 1979) ("juvenile adjudications are not
crimes"). This result would hamper
the beneficial purpose of the legislation to provide relief to one-time adult offenders
who changed their ways and now positively contribute to society. See In re Kollman, ___ N.J. ___,
___ (2012) (slip op. at 40).
Here, the State acknowledges that petitioner,
unless restricted by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1a, meets all of the requirements to
have his juvenile adjudications expunged pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2C:52-4.1b. We concur. Specifically, petitioner was discharged from
custody more than five years ago, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b(1). He had not been convicted of a crime or
offense, or adjudicated delinquent or in need of supervision in the five years
preceding his petition, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b(2). He was not adjudicated delinquent for acts
that would constitute one of the crimes excluded from expungement. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b(3). He has not had an adult conviction expunged
in the past, even though the petition requests such an expungement. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b(4). Finally, he has not had adult criminal
charges dismissed following diversion or supervision. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b(5).
Similarly, except for its mistaken
interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1a, the State acknowledges petitioner's
eligibility under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-4.1b for expungement of his adult
criminal conviction. Under the
expungement law, an adult conviction may be expunged after ten years, provided
a petitioner has not been convicted of a prior or subsequent crime, and has not
been convicted of two or more disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons
offenses. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2. In
addition, a person may qualify for the early "pathway" in as little
as five years if he can demonstrate that expunging his adult record would be "consistent
with the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense
and the petitioner's character and conduct since conviction." N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2c(3). See In re Lobasso, 423 N.J.
Super. 475, 481 (App. Div. 2012). Judge
Lipton determined that, while ten years had not elapsed, after considering petitioner's
educational and work accomplishments as well as his clear record, the nature of
the crime and his extreme youth, it was in the public interest to allow
expungement of petitioner's adult criminal conviction. The State has specified that it is not
challenging the judge's findings or her discretionary decision under N.J.S.A.
2C:52-2a(2).
Accordingly, we conclude that
petitioner met the requirements to have his juvenile adjudications of
delinquency as well as his adult criminal conviction expunged.
Affirmed.
|
|
[1]
The State does not appeal the part of the order expunging defendant's arrests
resulting in dismissals.
