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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT