J-S19024-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL L. HALEY
Appellant No. 972 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered February 24, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR—0223701-1985
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2016
Appellant, Michael L. Haley, pro se, appeals from the February 24,
2015 order denying his petition to expunge 1 his record of several prior
criminal charges. We affirm the order and deny Appellant’s application for
remand.
Appellant pled guilty on November 21, 1985 to a single count of
robbery. In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea, the Commonwealth moved
to nolle prosse the charges of theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen
property, possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”), and unlawful
possession of a firearm.
____________________________________________
1
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 790(A), authorizing any person who satisfies the
conditions for expungement to file an expungement petition.
J-S19024-16
On February 25, 2005, a Lehigh County jury found Appellant guilty of
attempted murder, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another
person, terroristic threats, theft, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The
trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 25 to 50 years of
incarceration for those offenses. This Court affirmed on September 15,
2006.
Appellant filed the instant petition, titled a “Petition to Redact Criminal
Record,” on September 22, 2014.2 Appellant petitioned to expunge the nolle
prossed charges from the 1985 prosecution. We gather from Appellant’s pro
se brief that he believes the record of the nolle prossed 1985 charges
adversely affected his 2005 sentence. We also gather that Appellant
believes his success in this action will provide grounds for challenging the
2005 sentence. The trial court conducted a hearing on February 25, 2015,
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 790(B). The trial court granted Appellant’s petition
as to all of the nolle prossed 1985 charges except unlawful possession of a
firearm. In rendering its decision, the court considered “fairness to
Appellant and the need for the [Commonwealth] to preserve records of the
____________________________________________
2
Appellant criticizes the trial court for applying the law of expungement to
his petition to “redact” his criminal record. Appellant fails to explain why he
believes expungement differs from redaction, and the cases he cites in his
brief address expungement.
-2-
J-S19024-16
type of robbery committed by the Appellant[.]” Trial Court Opinion,
7/30/15, at 1.
The right to seek expungement of charges stemming from an unlawful
or erroneous arrest is an “adjunct of due process.” Commonwealth v.
Malone, 366 A.2d 584, 587 (Pa. Super. 1976).3
The harm ancillary to an arrest record is obvious:
Information denominated a record of arrest, if it becomes
known, may subject an individual to serious difficulties. Even if
no direct economic loss is involved, the injury to an individual’s
reputation may be substantial. Economic losses themselves may
be both direct and serious. Opportunities for schooling,
employment, or professional licenses may be restricted or
nonexistent as a consequence of the mere fact of an arrest, even
if followed by acquittal or complete exoneration of the charges
involved. An arrest record may be used by the police in
determining whether subsequently to arrest the individual
concerned, or whether to exercise their discretion to bring formal
charges against an individual already arrested. Arrest records
have been used in deciding whether to allow a defendant to
present his story without impeachment by prior convictions, and
as a basis for denying release prior to trial or an appeal; or they
may be considered by a judge in determining the sentence to be
given a convicted offender.
Id. at 587-88.
“In determining whether justice requires expungement, the Court, in
each particular case, must balance the individual’s right to be free from the
harm attendant to maintenance of the arrest record against the
Commonwealth’s interest in preserving such records.” Commonwealth v.
____________________________________________
3
Pennsylvania also provides a statutory right to expungement under certain
conditions. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122. Appellant has not raised any argument
under § 9122.
-3-
J-S19024-16
Wexler, 431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981). The balance between the
individual’s interest in expungement and the Commonwealth’s need to retain
the records rests within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v.
Wallace, 97 A.3d 310, 314 (Pa. 2014). We review the trial court’s decision
for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Waughtel, 999 A.2d 623, 625
(Pa. Super. 2010). In determining whether to expunge a record, courts
should consider:
[T]he 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.
Wexler, 431 A.2d at 879.4
In Wallace, our Supreme Court held that the due process right to
seek expungement of non-conviction arrest records, described in Wexler
and Malone, does not extend to prison inmates. Wallace, 97 A.3d at 320.5
____________________________________________
4
We observe that the Wexler balancing test applies only in cases such as
this one where the Commonwealth terminates the charge without conviction
or acquittal. Wallace, 97 A.3d at 317-18. Expungement of convictions is
available only in limited, statutorily-prescribed circumstances. The
defendant is automatically entitled to expungement if he obtains an
acquittal. Id. (but see id at 382-84 Castille, C.J., concurring). Given our
Supreme Court’s analysis in Wallace, Appellant is not correct in asserting
that nolle prosequi is equivalent to acquittal.
5
The Commonwealth does not challenge the trial court’s decision to
expunge three of the four charges in question.
-4-
J-S19024-16
“[P]rison inmates do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections
afforded to non-incarcerated citizens.” Id. (quoting Payne v.
Commonwealth, 871 A.2d 795, 809 (Pa. 2005)). The Wallace Court
explained that an inmate’s interest in protecting his reputation is minimal,
and that he can seek expungement once again upon release. Id. at 380-81.
Likewise, expungement of various non-conviction charges will not erase the
stigma that attaches to a convicted felon. Id. at 381. Furthermore, the
Commonwealth has an interest in retaining the arrest records inasmuch as
statutory law requires the parole board to consider the inmates complete
criminal history when making a parole decision. Id. at 381 (citing 61
Pa.C.S.A. § 6135(a)(7)).
Instantly, in refusing to expunge Appellant’s firearms charge, the trial
court explained, in accord with Wallace, that it would be useful for a future
parole board to understand the nature of Appellant’s 1985 robbery charge.
The trial court recognized that the consequences of denying expungement to
a prison inmate are minimal, and that the possibility of parole justifies the
Commonwealth’s desire to retain records. In refusing to expunge the
firearms charge, the trial court followed Wallace to the letter. The court
also noted that the Wexler test is not controlling here, given Appellant’s
current incarceration and our Supreme Court’s holding in Wallace. Trial
Court Opinion, 7/30/15, at 3. We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s decision not to expunge the firearms charge.
-5-
J-S19024-16
Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth, in opposing
expungement, has reneged on one of its obligations under the parties’ plea
bargain. This argument fails because Appellant offers no evidence
expungement was part of the agreement. If Appellant assumed that
expungement of the nolle prossed charges is always part of the plea bargain,
he assumed incorrectly. In Commonwealth v. Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa.
Super. 2001), this Court wrote:
[T]he dismissal of some charges in exchange for a guilty
plea to related charges represents a common scenario yet poses
a thorny state of affairs when the defendant later seeks to
expunge the dismissed charges. In the absence of an
agreement as to expungement, Appellant stands to receive
more than he bargained for in the plea agreement if the
dismissed charges are later expunged.
Id. at 1001 (emphasis added). Absent any evidence of an agreement to
expunge, Appellant’s claim must fail.6
Order affirmed. Application to remand denied.
____________________________________________
6
Appellant filed an application for remand on August 24, 2015, asking this
Court to direct the trial court to issue an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
so that Appellant can, in turn, file a concise statement under that Rule. Rule
1925(b) is not mandatory. Rather, the trial court may enter an order under
subsection (b) if the court “desires clarification of the errors complained
of[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Here, the trial court issued an opinion without
directing Appellant to file a concise statement of errors. Further, the trial
court’s opinion correctly anticipated Appellant’s arguments. We will deny
Appellant’s application to remand.
-6-
J-S19024-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/12/2016
-7-