Com. v. Lloyd, R.

2025 Pa. Super. 93

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 514 EDA 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A01009-25 2025 PA Super 93

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAYSHEEN LLOYD : : Appellant : No. 514 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0010289-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAYSHEEN LLOYD : : Appellant : No. 515 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered January 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0010290-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 25, 2025

Appellant, Raysheen Lloyd, appeals from the order entered January 23,

2024, which denied his petitions for expungement at two docket numbers.

Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his

expungement petitions. After careful review, we affirm.

On June 19, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant at docket

numbers MC-51-CR-0010289-2022 (“0289”) and MC-51-CR-0010290-2022 J-A01009-25

(“0290”) with Aggravated Assault and related offenses. 1 The complaining

witness (“Complainant”) in both cases is Appellant’s former paramour. The

court dismissed all charges for lack of prosecution on August 12, 2022, after

Complainant failed to appear for the preliminary hearing that day and on two

prior occasions. On November 15, 2022, the court granted both cases Limited

Access pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122.2.

On February 27, 2023, Appellant filed petitions for expungement at both

docket numbers requesting that the court expunge the records regarding the

charges and his subsequent arrest. The Commonwealth objected because the

charges constituted a “pattern of domestic violence related arrests/charges.”

Commonwealth’s Objection to Expungement, 10/26/23.

The court held an expungement hearing on January 23, 2024. The

Commonwealth introduced the affidavits of probable cause for both cases and

the parties stipulated that Appellant had prior convictions for Knowing and

Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance in 2003 and 2004, as well as

for Resisting Arrest in 2010. The Commonwealth did not present any witness

testimony, medical records, or photographs. The Commonwealth argued that

it opposed expungement because the statute of limitations would not expire

____________________________________________

1 At 0289, Complainant alleged that as a result of Appellant’s actions, she sustained “a black eye, bruises on her arms and legs, and a cut on her toe.” Trial Ct. Op., 4/8/24, at 3. At 0290, Complainant alleged that Appellant caused “a lumbar vertebra fracture, a sprained left wrist, multiple abrasions, and busted lip[,]” which were treated at Einstein Hospital. Id. The court noted that “[C]omplainant forwarded photographs of the injuries to the assigned detective.” Id.

-2- J-A01009-25

until 2027, and the charges might serve as Pa.R.E. 404(b) evidence in future

cases against Appellant. N.T. Hr’g, 1/23/24, at 30, 34.

Appellant also testified. He explained that he lost his seasonal

employment the day before the expungement hearing and that he currently

worked part-time. Regarding his efforts to find employment, he testified that

only one potential employer told him that it could see his criminal record, but

did not specify that it could see the present charges. Finally, he stated that

his goal is to find a union-based job, which he cannot do because of his record.

The court denied the petitions. Appellant timely appealed. Both he and

the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Did not the lower court abuse its discretion [and] violate the dictates of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions and due process protections in denying the motion for expungement?

Appellant’s Br. at 1.

We review the denial of an expungement petition for abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Adams, 317 A.3d 639, 643 (Pa. Super. 2024). An abuse

of discretion is “the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of

judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-

will[,] or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.” Commonwealth v.

Harris, 884 A.2d 920, 924 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).

When the Commonwealth terminates a case without either a conviction

or an acquittal, and a defendant seeks to expunge his record, “this Court has

required the trial court to balance the individual’s right to be free from the

-3- J-A01009-25

harm [due] to maintenance of the arrest record against the Commonwealth’s

interest in preserving such records.” Adams, 317 A.3d at 644 (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). Factors relevant to the court’s

consideration of the expungement petition include: (1) “the strength of the

Commonwealth’s case against the petitioner[;]” (2) “the reasons the

Commonwealth gives for wishing to retain the records[;]” (3) “the petitioner’s

age, criminal record, and employment history[;]” (4) “the length of time that

has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge[;]” and (5) the

specific adverse consequences the petitioner may endure” if the court denied

expungement. Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981)

(citation omitted).2 The court should evaluate all the Wexler factors in cases

terminated without a conviction. Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770,

773 (Pa. 1997).

When the Commonwealth has not presented any evidence at either a

preliminary hearing or the expungement hearing that would be admissible at

a trial, this Court has held expungement is appropriate. See, e.g., Adams,

317 A.3d at 645-46 (reviewing the Wexler factors and concluding that trial

court abused its discretion in denying expungement because the

2 In Wexler, the court determined that the first two factors—the strength of

the case against the petitioner and the reasons given for maintaining the record—weighed in favor of granting expungement and, thus, only considered those two factors in determining that the lower court abused its discretion in denying expungement. 431 A.2d at 880-81.

-4- J-A01009-25

Commonwealth had provided only police reports at the expungement hearing,

which were hearsay and, thus, inadmissible at trial).

When the Commonwealth admits that it will be unable to bear its burden

of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the Commonwealth “bear[s] the

burden of justifying why the arrest record should not be expunged.”

Commonwealth v. Moto, 23 A.3d 989, 994 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).

Relevant to the instant case, “where the evidence against a petitioner is not

wholly insufficient, a petitioner’s record should, at a minimum, be maintained

throughout the applicable statutory period to allow the Commonwealth to

refile the charges should the victim decide to testify.” Commonwealth v.

Drummond, 694 A.2d 1111, 1114 (Pa. Super. 1997).

In Drummond, the Commonwealth charged the defendant with

Aggravated Assault after he injured his wife such that she needed medical

attention, an incident that was part of an ongoing pattern of abuse. Id. at

1112. The court dismissed the charges after the victim refused to testify at

the preliminary hearing. One year later, the defendant filed an expungement

petition, which the court denied. Id. On appeal, this Court affirmed,

concluding, inter alia, that the Commonwealth presented the testimony of the

investigating officer who saw the victim’s injuries firsthand; the arrest report

detailed ongoing abuse; the victim needed medical treatment; the defendant

filed the petition only one year after his arrest; the statute of limitations had

not yet run; and his “boilerplate claim of ‘embarrassment and irreparable

-5- J-A01009-25

harm’” was insufficient to demonstrate specific adverse consequences. Id. at

1113-14.

Here, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in

denying expungement because the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden

regarding the first and second Wexler factors and further contends that the

remaining factors weigh in favor of granting expungement. Appellant’s Br. at

7-21. Regarding the first Wexler factor, Appellant argues that the

Commonwealth did not establish that it could present a strong case because

it did not present any witnesses at the expungement hearing or a preliminary

hearing, and the affidavits presented at the hearing were double hearsay and

thus, inadmissible at a trial. Id. at 12-13. Regarding the second factor,

Appellant argues that the Commonwealth’s reasons for opposing

expungement—the Rule 404(b) use of the arrests and the statute of

limitations—were “general and far from compelling” because they could apply

in any case. Id. at 14.

Regarding the third factor, Appellant notes that he is 40 years old, which

is young enough for his record to affect employment, and the rest of his

criminal record is over 10 years old. Id. at 18. Regarding the fourth factor,

Appellant asserts that the court erroneously considered whether the statute

of limitations had run when the Commonwealth did not meet its burden

regarding the first two factors. Id. at 18-19. He also notes that, in Wexler,

the court granted expungement where the expungement hearing was 6

months after the charges had been nolle prossed. Id. at 19. Finally, regarding

-6- J-A01009-25

the fifth factor, Appellant argues that the absence of adverse consequences is

not enough to deny expungement because it is not his burden to establish

that he has suffered adverse consequences. Id. at 20.

The trial court, however, concluded that each Wexler factor weighed in

favor of denying expungement. Trial Ct. Op. at 8. Regarding the first factor,

it found that the Commonwealth presented compelling evidence about

Appellant’s conduct in the form of two sworn affidavits and medical evidence, 3

and that the only reason the Commonwealth could not meet its burden at the

preliminary hearing was because Complainant refused to testify. Id. at 5.

The court found this case analogous to Drummond, supra, because in both

cases, the complainants complained of a continuing pattern of abuse and

required medical treatment for their injuries. Id. at 5-6 (citing Exhs. C-2 and

C-3). Additionally, Complainant identified Appellant as the perpetrator when

she reported the incidents. Id. at 6. Regarding the second factor, the court

explained, inter alia, that the statute of limitations does not expire until 2027,

allowing the Commonwealth to refile charges if Complainant cooperates in the

future. Id.

Regarding the third factor, the court found that Appellant has

maintained employment, and it was not clear that the prospective employer

could see the present charges on his background check. Id. at 6-7. Regarding

3 We note that the Commonwealth did not present medical evidence beyond

the complainant’s description of her injuries in the affidavits of probable cause. See N.T. Hr’g at 30-36, Commonwealth Ex. C-2 and C-3.

-7- J-A01009-25

the fourth factor, it noted that there were only 6 months between the dismissal

of the charges and the expungement petitions, which, based on Drummond,

was a short time that weighed in favor of denying expungement. Id. at 7.

Finally, regarding the fifth factor, it found that, although Appellant testified

that since his arrest for these charges, he could not obtain full-time

employment, Appellant has been employed and there is no evidence that his

record prevented employment, or of any other adverse consequences. Id.

Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial

court’s decision to deny expungement in both cases. The court examined each

of the Wexler factors and assigned significant weight to the relatively short

length of time that elapsed between Appellant’s arrest and his expungement

petitions, the fact that the statute of limitations had not yet run, and the lack

of adverse consequences that Appellant suffered as a result of having the

instant arrests on his record.

Our review of the record supports the court’s findings: only 6 months

have elapsed between the dismissal of the charges and the expungement

petitions, the statute of limitations does not expire until 2027, allowing the

Commonwealth to re-file the charges if Complainant cooperates in the future,

and there is no evidence that these charges have prevented Appellant from

gaining employment. In balancing Appellant’s “right to be free from the harm

[due] to maintenance of the arrest record” against the Commonwealth’s

interest in preserving his record, the trial court properly determined that

Appellant has not suffered harm, and the Commonwealth demonstrated a

-8- J-A01009-25

sufficient reason for maintaining the records. Adams, 317 A.3d at 644. We

discern no abuse of the court’s discretion. Accordingly, Appellant’s claims do

not entitle him to relief, and we affirm the denial of expungement at both

docket numbers.

Orders affirmed.

Date: 4/25/2025

-9-