A.E.W. v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CA-02245-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-14-2006
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Expungement - Section 99-15-26(5)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-01-2004
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert H. Walker
Disposition: SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXPUNCTION DENIED
Case Number: 1934

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: A.E.W.




JIM DAVIS



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Expungement - Section 99-15-26(5)

Summary of the Facts: A.E.W. was arrested by the Biloxi Police Department on June 18, 1979, and indicted for the charge of “unnatural intercourse.” On August 28, 1980, the charge was passed to the inactive file. A.E.W. twice sought to have the charge expunged. This is an appeal from the second and supplemental motion to expunge which was denied.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Section 99-15-26(5) provides that upon petition, the court shall expunge the record of any case in which an arrest was made, the person arrested was released and the case was dismissed or the charges were dropped or there was no disposition of such case. The State takes the position that expungement is not proper in any case in which there is any potential that prosecution could become active again, even this twenty-five-year-old case which has long been passed to the inactive file. If the phrase “there was no disposition of such case” does not apply to a case in which no disposition has been reached in twenty-five years, when would it ever apply? In denying expungement of the 1979 charge, the trial court determined that the statute should not be applied “retroactively.” This ruling was based upon the statute’s recitation of a 1983 “effective date.” The court erred in relying upon the March 31, 1983 effective date to determine that the court was not required to expunge cases which arose prior to 1983. The effective date clearly deals with the original statutory provisions regarding non-adjudicated cases, not with expungement, which was introduced thirteen years later. There is nothing in the statute limiting former expungement to crimes committed after 1983. The trial court was without discretion to deny A.E.W.’s motion to expunge the 1979 arrest following the 2003 amendment to section 99-15-26.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court