Fonville v. McLaughlin
| Decision Date | 23 October 1970 |
| Citation | 270 A.2d 529 |
| Parties | Oliver S. FONVILLE, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. William T. McLAUGHLIN et al., Appellees. Ernest WEBSTER and Morris Roberts, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. William T. McLAUGHLIN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Upon appeal from Superior Court. Reversed and remanded.
Ernest S. Wilson, Jr., of Wilson & Russell, Wilmington, for appellant Oliver S. Fonville.
Peter Warren Green, of Booker, Leshem, Green, Shaffer, Berl & Wise, Wilmington, for appellants Ernest Webster and Morris Roberts.
Stephen B. Potter, of Sullivan, Potter & Roeberg, Wilmington, for appellee Johnny B. Johnson.
These are appeals from the Order of the Superior Court, dated October 21, 1970, holding:
'* * * that John Brice Johnson, a/k/a Johnnie B. Johnson, is entitled to have his name appear on the ballot as a Democratic candidate for the State General Assembly * * *.'
On October 13, 1970, the Superior Court had stricken from the records of the Court a plea of guilty which had been entered by Johnny B. Johnson (hereinafter 'Johnson') to a charge of grand larceny brought against him in a 1951 criminal action in that Court. The guilty plea was stricken, upon the petition of Johnson, under the following provision of the Delaware Probation Statute, being 11 Del.C. § 4332(i):
'(i) If such offender fully complies with all of the terms and conditions of his recognizance and with all terms and conditions of his probation during the entire period prescribed by the court, the plea or verdict of guilty entered by or recorded against such offender shall be stricken from the records of the court.'
Article 2, Section 21 of the Delaware Constitution, Del.C.Ann. provides:
'No person who shall be convicted of embezzlement of the public money, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust, honor or profit under this State.'
The Superior Court ruled that grand larceny, a felony, is an 'infamous' crime within the meaning of Art. 2, § 21. We agree.
The threshold question is the meaning of the word 'convicted' as used in Del.Const. Art. 2, § 21. We hold that, as used in this constitutional provision creating a disability of citizenship, the word is to be construed in its narrow sense: it consists of more than a verdict or plea of guilty; it refers to a final judgment of conviction consisting of the adjudication of guilt by plea or verdict followed by the imposition of sentence. See Truchon v. Toomey, 116 Cal.App.2d 736, 254 P.2d 638 (1953); People v. Fabian, 192 N.Y. 443, 85 N.E. 672. It is settled in this State that the imposition of a term of probation constitutes a sentence. See 11 Del.C. § 4302. Accordingly, we hold that Johnson was 'convicted' of an infamous crime in 1951, within the meaning of the term as used in Art. 2, § 21.
It appears from the foregoing that, having been convicted of an infamous crime, Johnson is ineligible to hold a seat in the General Assembly by reason of the constitutional bar, unless the Court's striking of the guilty plea under 11 Del.C. § 4332(i) effectively vacated or set aside that judgment of conviction. We hold that the striking of the plea under § 4332(i) did not have that effect.
In State v. Robinson, Del.Supr., 251 A.2d 552 (1969), we had the occasion to examine into the scope and purpose of 11 Del.C. § 4332(i). Holding that successful completion of probation and striking of a guilty plea did not preclude consideration of the prior conviction in a subsequent prosecution under the new Firearms Act, we there stated:
'This question requires consideration of the scope and purpose of § 4332(i): That provision of our Probation Statute seems to be a novel one without counterpart elsewhere. The precise purpose intended by the General Assembly in the enactment of § 4332(i) is difficult to comprehend. It does not require that all court records of the case against the successful probationer be destroyed; it calls only for the striking of 'the plea or verdict of guilty entered by or recorded against' him. This leaves unstricken and of record such documents and docket entries as the indictment or information, the fact of arraignment, the transcript of the trial, the evidence, the presentence report, the sentence, and the probation officer's record. Obviously, if by § 4332(i) the legislative intent was to obliterate all traces of the prosecution and conviction of the probationer, it has failed to do so; and for that purpose the requirement that the guilty plea or verdict be stricken is meaningless.
Our present review of § 4332(i) has not clarified its purpose and scope. Its application and purpose remain difficult to comprehend. In the instant application, nevertheless, we adhere to our holding in Robinson that successful completion of probation and invocation of § 4332(i) does not 'obliterate the record of the case and the fact of the conviction.' We are clear that in construing § 4332(i) in its application to Art. 2, § 21, distinction must be made between a conviction which is a final judgment, and a plea or verdict of guilty which is only an element of a conviction. See also Kelly v. Municipal Court, 160 Cal.App.2d 38, 324 P.2d 990 (1958). The striking of a plea does not amount to an expunging of a conviction.
We hold that by § 4332(i) the General Assembly did not direct the vacating or the setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Grogan v. Lisinski, 83-268
...verdict of guilty which is only an element of a conviction." (Slawik v. Folsom (Del.1979), 410 A.2d 512, 515, citing Fonville v. McLaughlin (Del.1970), 270 A.2d 529, 531.) The court noted that the debates relating to article XV, section 6, refer to the word "convicted" as meaning convicted ......
-
Slawik v. Folsom
...is deemed to have occurred, became moot. The key to the problem is found in the decision of this Court in Fonville v. McLaughlin, Del.Supr., 270 A.2d 529 (1970). In that case, the issue presented was whether or not a candidate for the General Assembly, who had previously been convicted of g......
-
Capriglione v. State
...him under Section 21. The Superior Court then confirmed in an opinion that Johnson was eligible to seek public office.61 In Fonville v. McLaughlin ,62 we reversed and held that Johnson was disqualified from holding public office. We decided, first, that Section 21 only applies to final judg......
-
Kitsap County Republican Central Committee v. Huff
...by plea or verdict followed by the imposition of sentence. Slawik v. Folsom, 410 A.2d 512, 515 (Del.1979), quoting from, Fonville v. McLaughlin, 270 A.2d 529 (Del.1970). From this review of our own cases and cases in other jurisdictions, we are persuaded that, for the purpose of disqualific......