Coleman v. State Crim. Records Repository
| Decision Date | 28 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 90823.,ED 90823. |
| Citation | 268 S.W.3d 464 |
| Parties | Zerieta G. COLEMAN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. MISSOURI STATE CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY, et al., Respondents/Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Zerieta G. Coleman, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner/Respondent.
Christopher Richard Fehr, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent/Appellants.
The Missouri State Criminal Records Repository (the State) appeals from the trial court's Judgment and Order of Expungement of Arrest Records (Judgment) granting Zerieta G. Coleman's (Coleman) Petition for Expungement of Arrest Records (Petition). We reverse.
On October 3, 2007, Coleman filed a Petition seeking expungement of a record of arrest. On November 30, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing, at which the following evidence was adduced.
Coleman, who was 68 years old at the time of the hearing, is retired and volunteers for several organizations throughout St. Louis. On October 23, 1964, Coleman was found guilty of stealing. Coleman did not remember having a trial and believed that she pled guilty to the charge. Coleman admitted that she probably committed the crime.
The 44-year-old arrest and conviction was revealed on a police report that was generated when Coleman sought to expand her charitable efforts to a local homeless center. Coleman was advised by the center's staff that she would not be able to volunteer if the record was not expunged. Coleman stated that while she could not deny committing the offense, she wanted the record expunged so she could volunteer at the center.
The trial court entered its Judgment ordering the expungement of Coleman's arrest and conviction record. In doing so, the court found that (1) Coleman's arrest was based on false information; (2) there was no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe that Coleman committed the offense; (3) no charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest; (4) Coleman has no prior or subsequent convictions; (5) Coleman did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for any offense related to the arrest; and (6) no civil action was pending relating to the arrest or the records sought to be expunged. The trial court also found that application of the expungement statute to the case before it was inconsistent with the legislature's intent. This appeal follows.
On appeal, the State argues the trial court erred in granting Coleman's Petition to expunge her record because Coleman did not satisfy the requirements of Section 610.1221 in that she failed to prove that her arrest was based on false information, that there was no probable cause to believe that she committed the charged offense, and that no charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest.
The trial court's application of statutory requirements is a question of law rather than fact, so we review the trial court's decision de novo. Jones v. St. Louis County Police Dept., 133 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo.App. E.D.2004).
The State contends the trial court erred in granting Coleman's Petition because Coleman failed to satisfy all of the requirements of Section 610.122. Section 610.122 provides that a record of arrest may be expunged if (1) the arrest was based on false information; (2) there was no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the petitioner committed the offense; (3) no charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest; (4) the petitioner has no prior or subsequent convictions; (5) the petitioner did not receive a suspended imposition of sentence for an offense related to the arrest; and (6) no civil action is pending relating to the arrest of the records sought to be expunged. The State concedes that the fourth, fifth and sixth requirements are not at issue in this case.
First, the State argues that Coleman has failed to satisfy the third requirement, that no charges will be pursued as a result of the arrest, because Coleman was convicted on the offense for which she was arrested. The State does not support this contention with citation to any authority. As Martinez v. State, 24 S.W.3d 10, 15-19 (Mo.App. E.D.2000), a case cited by the State for another proposition, makes clear, the requirement that no charges "will be pursued" as a result of the arrest, means that no charges will be pursued in the future and does not prohibit relief under Section 610.122 simply because charges were brought in the past. See also In re Dyer, 163 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo. banc 2005) (indicating one of the requirements under Section 610.122 is there be "no future charges."). The State's contention of error on this point is without merit.
Next, the State argues that Coleman failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Naunheim v. Naunheim
... ... motion to dismiss, contending that the wife failed to state a claim and that the dissolution court lacked jurisdiction ... ...
-
Trapani v. State
...to be expunged.(emphasis added); see also In re Dyer , 163 S.W.3d 915, 918 (Mo. banc 2005) ; Coleman v. Mo. State Criminal Records Repository , 268 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).Here, Trapani only challenges the trial court's findings that Trapani's arrest was not based on false info......
-
Doe v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository
...false information or that there was no probable cause. Id. at 330. MSHP also compares Doe's case to Coleman v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, 268 S.W.3d 464 (Mo.App.E.D.2008), where the petitioner sought to have an arrest for stealing expunged. Id. at 465. At the hearing, the p......
-
Sutton v. Mun. Court Div.
...review the trial court's application of statutory requirements de novo . Adum, 423 S.W.3d at 328 ; Coleman v. Missouri State Criminal Records Repository, 268 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) ; see also Martin v. State, 267 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Mo.App.E.D.2008).DiscussionMSHP presents two point......