IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 19–1413
Filed May 22, 2020
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Defendant.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
Petitioner seeks review of a district court order denying her
applications 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 three separate cases, Jane Doe was charged with assault with a
weapon, driving while revoked, domestic abuse assault with a dangerous
weapon, and operating while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled
substance. The charges in all three case were dismissed. Doe filed an
application for expungement of the record in each of the three separate
cases pursuant to Iowa Code section 901C.2 (2019). The district court
denied Doe’s applications for expungement on the ground Doe had
“[m]onies owed in other matters.” Doe timely filed her notice of appeal in
each of the cases, and the cases were consolidated on appeal. We choose
to treat the notices of appeal as petitions 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 the defendant was
required to establish she 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
3
orders denying Doe’s applications for expungement, and remand this
matter for further proceedings.
WRIT SUSTAINED AND CASE REMANDED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., who concurs specially, and
McDermott, J., who takes no part.
This opinion shall not be published.
4
#19–1413, Doe v. State
APPEL, Justice (concurring specially).
As I articulate in greater detail in my concurrence in Doe v. State,
No. 19–1402, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2020) (Appel, J., concurring), filed
today, I reach the same conclusion as the majority does. I arrive at this
conclusion, however, within its full statutory context, employing a
combination of tools of interpretation including text, purpose, and lack of
compelling countervailing arguments. It remains important to
acknowledge that there are a myriad of tools available to judges to aid in
our pursuit of the most correct interpretation of the law. Overreliance on
textualism is a mistake, and one I wish to emphasize now in my
concurrence.