Gregg v. Com., 831738

Decision Date15 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 831738,831738
Citation227 Va. 504,316 S.E.2d 741
PartiesWatson W. GREGG v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

F. Warren Haynie, Jr., Heathsville (Haynie & Withers, Heathsville, on brief), for appellant.

Michael E. Ornoff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Gerald L. Baliles, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

COMPTON, Justice.

In this appeal, we consider whether a specific type of criminal record may be expunged under Code § 19.2-392.2. Here, disposition of a drug charge was in accordance with a statute that permitted the court, upon a first offender's plea of guilty, to refrain from entering a judgment of guilt, to place the accused on probation, and ultimately to discharge the person and dismiss the proceeding against him.

In June of 1975, Watson W. Gregg was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana in violation of former Code § 54-524.101:2. At the September 1975 trial in the General District Court of Northumberland County, defendant pled guilty and was placed on probation pursuant to former Code § 54-524.101:3. 1 Thereafter the charge was dismissed in March of 1976, the judge noting on the warrant: "Dismissed on first offense...."

In June of 1983, Gregg initiated the present proceeding in the Circuit Court of Northumberland County. Relying on Code § 19.2-392.2 (hereinafter, the expungement statute), 2 he petitioned the court to expunge the police and court records relevant to the prior charge. The Commonwealth opposed Gregg's request.

After a hearing, the trial court ruled against Gregg and dismissed the petition. The court decided that the former charge "is not a proper charge to be expunged...." We conclude the trial court was correct.

"The purpose for which a statute is enacted is of primary importance in its interpretation or construction." Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Lassiter, 193 Va. 360, 364, 68 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1952). The several statutes dealing with expungement of criminal records are codified in Chapter 23.1 of Title 19.2. The first statute of the chapter, Code § 19.2-392.1, contains the following statement of policy:

"The General Assembly finds that arrest records can be a hindrance to an innocent citizen's ability to obtain employment, an education and to obtain credit. This chapter is intended to protect the innocent persons who are arrested from unwarranted damage which may occur as a result of being arrested."

Gregg argues that because the charge against him was "dismissed" under the first offender statute, he qualifies as one who was "otherwise dismissed" under subparagraph (A)(2) of the expungement statute. Moreover, Gregg says, he is to be considered legally "innocent" within the meaning of the statutory policy statement because the charge against him was dismissed. Thus, he contends, the trial court erred in deciding he is not a member of the class of persons protected by the expungement statute. We disagree.

The expungement statute applies to innocent persons, not to those who are guilty. Under the first offender statute, probation and ultimate dismissal is conditioned on a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt. In the present case, the accused pled guilty. One who is "guilty" cannot occupy the status of "innocent" so as to qualify under the expungement statute as a person whose charge has been "otherwise dismissed."

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be

Affirmed.

1 That section (1974 Repl.Vol.), repealed by Acts 1975, ch. 589, provided as follows:

" § 54-524.101:3. Persons charged with first offense may be placed on probation; discharge.--Whenever any person who has not previously been convicted of any offense under this chapter or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic drugs, or has not previously had a proceeding against him for violation of such an offense dismissed as provided in this section, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of possession of a controlled substance under § 54-524.101:2, the court, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused, may defer further proceedings and place him on probation upon terms and conditions. Upon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided. Upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the court shall discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him. Discharge and dismissal under this section shall be without adjudication of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Snyder v. City of Alexandria
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 30 Noviembre 1994
    ...Court of Virginia has held that "the expungement statute applies to innocent persons, not to those who are guilty." Gregg v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 504, 316 S.E.2d 741 (1984). When Gregg was decided, the expungement statute applied only when the prosecution ended by acquittal, nolle prosequi......
  • Dressner v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 10 Enero 2013
    ...as a person whose charge has been ‘otherwise dismissed.’ ” 278 Va. at 102, 677 S.E.2d at 226–27 (quoting Gregg v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 504, 507, 316 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1984)). There, neither of the petitioners entered any kind of plea to the misdemeanor charges for which they sought expungem......
  • White v. Com., Record No. 2071-06-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 27 Diciembre 2007
    ...such defendants have either pled guilty or the court found the evidence sufficient to find them guilty. See Gregg v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 504, 507, 316 S.E.2d 741, 742-43 (1984) (finding that Gregg, who had successfully completed his probation under the first offender statute, Code § 18.2-......
  • Brown v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 4 Junio 2009
    ...thus argues that Brown is not innocent of the assault and battery charge. Citing this Court's decision in Gregg v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 504, 316 S.E.2d 741 (1984), the Commonwealth asserts that an individual who is not innocent of a criminal charge does not qualify as a person whose charge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT