IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 19–1407
Filed May 22, 2020
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Defendant.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William A.
Price, District Associate Judge.
Petitioner seeks review of a district court order denying his
application for expungement of the record of a criminal case. WRIT
SUSTAINED AND CASE REMANDED.
Andrew Duffelmeyer (until withdrawal) and Robert J. Poggenklass
(until withdrawal), and Alexander Vincent Kornya of Iowa Legal Aid,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, and John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
In 2000, John Doe was charged with escape, in violation of Iowa
Code section 719.4 (2001). The charge was subsequently dismissed. In
2019, Doe filed an application for expungement of the record in this case
pursuant to Iowa Code section 901C.2 (2019). The district court denied
Doe’s application for expungement on the ground Doe had court-ordered
financial obligations in other cases. Doe timely filed his notice of appeal,
which we choose to treat as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Iowa R.
App. P. 6.107(1)(a) (“Any party claiming . . . an associate district court
judge . . . acted illegally may commence an original certiorari action in the
supreme court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari as provided in these
rules.”); State v. Propps, 897 N.W.2d 91, 97 (Iowa 2017) (“Additionally, if a
case is initiated by a notice of appeal, but another form of review is proper,
we may choose to proceed as though the proper form of review was
requested by the defendant rather than dismiss the action.”).
In State v. Doe, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2020), filed today, we held
the requisite condition for expungement set forth in section 901C.2(1)(a)(2)
requires the defendant establish only that he or she satisfied all of the
court-ordered financial obligations in the criminal case in which the
application for expungement was filed and for which expungement was
sought. Here, the district court erred in concluding section 901C.2(1)(a)(2)
required the defendant to establish he also satisfied all court-ordered
financial obligations in other cases. For the reasons set forth in Doe, ___
N.W.2d at ___, we grant Doe’s petition, sustain the writ, vacate the district
court’s order denying Doe’s application for expungement, and remand this
matter for further proceedings.
WRIT SUSTAINED AND CASE REMANDED.
3
All justices concur except Appel, J., who concurs specially, and
McDermott, J., who takes no part.
This opinion shall not be published.
4
#19–1407, Doe v. State
APPEL, Justice (concurring specially).
In Doe v. State, No. 19–1402, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2020) (Appel,
J., concurring), filed today, I articulate in greater detail my reasons for
concurring in the majority’s opinion. While I reach the same conclusion
as the majority does, I arrive at our shared conclusion through the
application of a host of tools of interpretation, rather than overreliance on
textualism. Judges possess many tools through which we may divine the
most correct interpretation of the law. Therefore, while I join the majority’s
conclusion, I wish to bring the reader’s attention to alternative manners of
thoughtful adjudication, in both this and other matters.