Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dept., No. ED 105807

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtLisa Van Amburg, Judge
Citation549 S.W.3d 504
Parties Tracy PERKINS, Petitioner/Respondent, v. BRIDGETON POLICE DEPT. et al., Respondents/Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. ED 105807
Decision Date20 March 2018

549 S.W.3d 504

Tracy PERKINS, Petitioner/Respondent,
v.
BRIDGETON POLICE DEPT. et al., Respondents/Appellants.

No. ED 105807

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: March 20, 2018


Daniel S. Levy, P.O. Box 861, St. Louis, Missouri 63188, (Attorney for Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository).

Andrew F. Wasserman, 100 South Central Ave, 2nd Floor, Clayton, Missouri 63105, (Attorney for St. Louis County Prosecutor’s Office).

FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel A. Juengel, Michael B. Murphy (co-counsel), 7710 Carondelet Ave, Suite 350, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

Lisa Van Amburg, Judge

The State1 appeals the circuit court’s judgment granting Respondent Tracy Perkins’s petition for expungement of her Forgery convictions. The State argues that the circuit court erred because Section 610.140 RSMo Supp. 2013 does not authorize the expungement of Forgery convictions. We reverse.

Factual Background

In 1991, Tracy Perkins ("Perkins") pled guilty to nine counts of Forgery in violation of Section 570.090 RSMo, where Perkins wrote checks in another person’s name, without that person’s authorization, and knowing that the checks were forged. Perkins successfully completed probation related to those Forgery convictions over twenty years ago, owes no restitution for her offenses, and has not been convicted of any misdemeanors or felonies in the interim. Still, the Forgery convictions remain on Perkins’s criminal record.

On December 30, 2016, Perkins filed a petition under Section 610.140 to expunge the records of her arrest, plea, and convictions relating to the 1991 forgeries. The State opposed Perkins’s petition on the ground that Forgery is not an offense that is eligible for expungement under 610.140.2 ,3

549 S.W.3d 506

The circuit court found that the facts underlying Perkins’s convictions could support a conviction for either Forgery under Section 570.090 or Fraudulent Use of a Credit or Debit Device under Section 570.130. The circuit court noted that a conviction under Section 570.130 is eligible for expungement per Section 610.140.2(1), while a conviction under Section 570.090 is not eligible. The circuit court looked past the plain language of Section 610.140, reasoning that barring expungement "because of the name of the offense versus the underlying conduct" is illogical and absurd, and against the intent of Section 610.140. The circuit court also noted that expungement would be consistent with the public welfare based on Perkins’s current and continuing status as a "contributing member of society."

Standard of Review

In reviewing a court-tried case, we affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Doe v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository , 474 S.W.3d 171, 174 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Here, the circuit court’s judgment is based on its construction of Section 610.140. Because statutory construction is purely a question a law subject to independent de novo review, we give no deference to the circuit court’s determination of law. Martinez v. State , 24 S.W.3d 10, 15 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).

Analysis

In its sole point on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Loveland v. Austin, ED 108859
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2021
    ...638, 641 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. Banc 2014) ); see also Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dept., 549 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). "In statutory construction, courts must give effect to the statute as written and cannot add provisions whi......
  • Isom v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., WD 80739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...exhibit was the court’s own prior record and courts may take judicial notice of their own records). The trial court failed to do so here.549 S.W.3d 504ConclusionThe motion to dismiss was premised upon the contents of the PSA and the prior bankruptcy proceedings. Those documents were not con......
  • R. H. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. ED 107362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 9, 2019
    ...and infractions that are "not eligible for expungement under this section[.]" See Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dep't , 549 S.W.3d 504, 506-07 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (Section 610.140.2 lists offenses "for which expungement shall not be available"). The language in Section 61......
3 cases
  • Loveland v. Austin, ED 108859
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2021
    ...638, 641 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Mo. Banc 2014) ); see also Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dept., 549 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). "In statutory construction, courts must give effect to the statute as written and cannot add provisions whi......
  • Isom v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., WD 80739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...exhibit was the court’s own prior record and courts may take judicial notice of their own records). The trial court failed to do so here.549 S.W.3d 504ConclusionThe motion to dismiss was premised upon the contents of the PSA and the prior bankruptcy proceedings. Those documents were not con......
  • R. H. v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository, No. ED 107362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 9, 2019
    ...and infractions that are "not eligible for expungement under this section[.]" See Perkins v. Bridgeton Police Dep't , 549 S.W.3d 504, 506-07 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (Section 610.140.2 lists offenses "for which expungement shall not be available"). The language in Section 61......

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