ILNews

Man does not need to wait 3 years to file new expungement petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted a defendant’s petition for rehearing to address a “perhaps unique question” presented in his petition: Does he have to wait three years before he can file another petition to expunge the records of his Class A misdemeanor conviction?

The appeals court affirmed in May the denial of Craig Alvey’s petition to expunge his Class A misdemeanor conviction of possession of cocaine. He originally pleaded guilty to a Class D felony, but the terms of the agreement allowed him to petition to have the conviction reduced after completing his sentence. Before the conviction was reduced, he twice admitted to violating the terms of his probation. These violations served as the basis for the denial of his expungement petition because the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that he did not successfully complete his sentence.

On Wednesday, the judges decided that Alvey should not have to wait three years before he can file a new petition for expungement under the current expungement statute. The statute in effect when he filed required petitioners to wait three years after their petition was denied to file a new petition. The statute in effect now does not contain a three-year waiting period for new petitions unless certain conditions are present, and those conditions do not apply here, Judge Paul Mathias wrote in Craig Alvey v. State of Indiana, 20A04-1310-MI-533.

The original decision is affirmed in all other respects.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT