J-S29009-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
GARY LEE SMITH
Appellant No. 1820 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order September 25, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000885-1989
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 05, 2014
Appellant, Gary Smith, appeals pro se
denying his motion to expunge his record of an arrest in 1989 for
harassment by communication.1 Smith contends that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying the expunction of his arrest records because they
should have been expunged in 1990 when his charges were expunged
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 186.2 We affirm.
On April 10, 1989, Smith was arrested and charged with harassment
by communication. Smith was later admitted to an Accelerated Rehabilitation ____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. 5504(a). 2 Pa.R.Crim.P. 186 is now renumbered Pa.R.Crim.P. 320(A). J-S29009-14
harassment charges would be expunged. On November 29, 1990, the trial
court ordered the charges to be expunged and the Commonwealth agreed
without objection.
Seven years later, Smith was arrested in Arkansas following a sexual
assault, pled nolo contendere to the charges, and registered as a sex
offender. The trial court in Arkansas withheld imposition of sentence for a
During that five-year period, Smith took sexually explicitly photos of a
nude 12 year-old girl. He later distributed the photograph over the Internet
and by mail. See United States v. Smith, 367 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2004).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
On April 4, 2013, Smith filed a petition in the Pennsylvania trial court
seeking to expunge his 1989 arrest record. Following the denial of that
motion, Smith filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court held that the
motion would be granted absent a showing from the Commonwealth why it
-2- J-S29009-14
crimes that occurred in Arkansas and
Missouri.
crimes in Arkansas and Missouri as the reason for objecting to the
expunction of his arrest record. The trial court found merit in the
C
record. Smith then filed this timely appeal.
Smith raises the following issues:
I. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in assimilating the motion for dismissal, in violation of PA Rule 320 (B)? A. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred when suggesting that Appellant had an obligation to move for an expungement B. Whether the Court of Common Pleas has a duty under PA Rule 320 to enter an order of expungement? C. Whether the Appellant has been harmed by the Court of Common Pleas refusal to enter an order of expungement? D. Whether the Court of Common Pleas had statutory authority to accept and consider objections from the Commonwealth 22 years after the motion for dismissal?
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we must determine if Smith
has properly preserved all of his issues for our review in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780
statement and/or raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph
See also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 308
-3- J-S29009-14
(Pa. 1998). Therefore, we will not review any issues that have not been
See id.
Here, the Commonwealth contends that Smith has waived issues I.A
through I.C. as they were not included in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
However, we find that each of these sub-issues is essentially asking if the
1989 arrest record. Each sub-question that Smith lists is not a separate
issue raised for our review, but a question postulated to support his main
argument for the preserved issue that is being raised on appeal. We
therefore find that Smith has properly preserved this issue for appeal.
The decision to grant or deny a request for expunction of an arrest
record lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Commonwealth
v. Furrer, 48 A.3d 1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2012). As such, we review the
See Commonwealth v. Lutz,
788 A.2d 993, 996 (Pa. Super. 2001). A trial court abuses its discretion if in
reaching a conclusion, the law is overridden or misapplied, or the exercised
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill will. See Commonwealth v. Hann, 81 A.3d 57, 65 (Pa. 2013).
expungement of a criminal arrest record. This right is an adjunct of due
Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005)
-4- J-S29009-14
arrest record should not be expunged. . . Commonwealth v. Wexler,
431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981).
We have noted that an individual may suffer harm as a result of the
See Commonwealth v.
Malone, 366 A.2d 584, 587-88 (Pa. Super. 1976). Because of this hardship,
there are certain circumstances in which substantive due process guarantees
an individual the right to have his arrest record expunged. See id. In
record, the trial court is required, when prosecution has been terminated
without conviction or acquittal because of an ARD program, to balance a
non-exclusive list of factors as set forth in Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431
A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981):
against the petitioner, the reasons the Commonwealth gives for wishing to retain the records, the record, and employment history, the length of time that has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge, and the specific adverse consequences the petitioner may endure should expunction be denied.
Id., at 879 (citation omitted).
With this legal framework in mind, we turn to the merits of this appeal.
The court order dated in 1990 only expunged the harassment charges, not
his arrest record. See Order, 11/29/90, at 1. The trial court in 1990 was
required, pursuant to P
-5- J-S29009-14
absent some compelling state interest. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Armstrong, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981). However, Smith did not assert his
arrest record
court was well within its rights to consider the objections submitted by the
Commonwealth to prevent the expunction of his 1989 arrest record pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 320 after Smith filed a motion to expunge his arrest record
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 319.
Here, once the Commonwealth filed its objections, the trial court
correctly applied the list of factors set forth in Wexler
prosecution of the harassment charge was terminated because of his
successful completion of the ARD program.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S29009-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
GARY LEE SMITH
Appellant No. 1820 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order September 25, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000885-1989
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 05, 2014
Appellant, Gary Smith, appeals pro se
denying his motion to expunge his record of an arrest in 1989 for
harassment by communication.1 Smith contends that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying the expunction of his arrest records because they
should have been expunged in 1990 when his charges were expunged
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 186.2 We affirm.
On April 10, 1989, Smith was arrested and charged with harassment
by communication. Smith was later admitted to an Accelerated Rehabilitation ____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. 5504(a). 2 Pa.R.Crim.P. 186 is now renumbered Pa.R.Crim.P. 320(A). J-S29009-14
harassment charges would be expunged. On November 29, 1990, the trial
court ordered the charges to be expunged and the Commonwealth agreed
without objection.
Seven years later, Smith was arrested in Arkansas following a sexual
assault, pled nolo contendere to the charges, and registered as a sex
offender. The trial court in Arkansas withheld imposition of sentence for a
During that five-year period, Smith took sexually explicitly photos of a
nude 12 year-old girl. He later distributed the photograph over the Internet
and by mail. See United States v. Smith, 367 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2004).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Courts of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
On April 4, 2013, Smith filed a petition in the Pennsylvania trial court
seeking to expunge his 1989 arrest record. Following the denial of that
motion, Smith filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court held that the
motion would be granted absent a showing from the Commonwealth why it
-2- J-S29009-14
crimes that occurred in Arkansas and
Missouri.
crimes in Arkansas and Missouri as the reason for objecting to the
expunction of his arrest record. The trial court found merit in the
C
record. Smith then filed this timely appeal.
Smith raises the following issues:
I. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in assimilating the motion for dismissal, in violation of PA Rule 320 (B)? A. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred when suggesting that Appellant had an obligation to move for an expungement B. Whether the Court of Common Pleas has a duty under PA Rule 320 to enter an order of expungement? C. Whether the Appellant has been harmed by the Court of Common Pleas refusal to enter an order of expungement? D. Whether the Court of Common Pleas had statutory authority to accept and consider objections from the Commonwealth 22 years after the motion for dismissal?
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we must determine if Smith
has properly preserved all of his issues for our review in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780
statement and/or raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph
See also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 308
-3- J-S29009-14
(Pa. 1998). Therefore, we will not review any issues that have not been
See id.
Here, the Commonwealth contends that Smith has waived issues I.A
through I.C. as they were not included in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
However, we find that each of these sub-issues is essentially asking if the
1989 arrest record. Each sub-question that Smith lists is not a separate
issue raised for our review, but a question postulated to support his main
argument for the preserved issue that is being raised on appeal. We
therefore find that Smith has properly preserved this issue for appeal.
The decision to grant or deny a request for expunction of an arrest
record lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Commonwealth
v. Furrer, 48 A.3d 1279, 1281 (Pa. Super. 2012). As such, we review the
See Commonwealth v. Lutz,
788 A.2d 993, 996 (Pa. Super. 2001). A trial court abuses its discretion if in
reaching a conclusion, the law is overridden or misapplied, or the exercised
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill will. See Commonwealth v. Hann, 81 A.3d 57, 65 (Pa. 2013).
expungement of a criminal arrest record. This right is an adjunct of due
Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005)
-4- J-S29009-14
arrest record should not be expunged. . . Commonwealth v. Wexler,
431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981).
We have noted that an individual may suffer harm as a result of the
See Commonwealth v.
Malone, 366 A.2d 584, 587-88 (Pa. Super. 1976). Because of this hardship,
there are certain circumstances in which substantive due process guarantees
an individual the right to have his arrest record expunged. See id. In
record, the trial court is required, when prosecution has been terminated
without conviction or acquittal because of an ARD program, to balance a
non-exclusive list of factors as set forth in Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431
A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981):
against the petitioner, the reasons the Commonwealth gives for wishing to retain the records, the record, and employment history, the length of time that has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge, and the specific adverse consequences the petitioner may endure should expunction be denied.
Id., at 879 (citation omitted).
With this legal framework in mind, we turn to the merits of this appeal.
The court order dated in 1990 only expunged the harassment charges, not
his arrest record. See Order, 11/29/90, at 1. The trial court in 1990 was
required, pursuant to P
-5- J-S29009-14
absent some compelling state interest. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Armstrong, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981). However, Smith did not assert his
arrest record
court was well within its rights to consider the objections submitted by the
Commonwealth to prevent the expunction of his 1989 arrest record pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P. 320 after Smith filed a motion to expunge his arrest record
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 319.
Here, once the Commonwealth filed its objections, the trial court
correctly applied the list of factors set forth in Wexler
prosecution of the harassment charge was terminated because of his
successful completion of the ARD program. The trial court was well within its
discretion when it considered the length of time it took for Smith to assert
conduct in
each of the factors were properly considered and that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion.
Smith asserts that notwithstanding the balancing of the Wexler
factors, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider the harm
caused by his arrest record. Smith contends that the arrest record causes
harm as the United States District Court used it as a factor to depart from
-6- J-S29009-14
the sentencing guidelines in his child pornography conviction and that harm
difficulties and hardships that may result from an arrest on record including
Doe
v. Zappala, 987 A.2d 190, 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Commonwealth
v. Butler n expungement affords an
individual some protection, but cannot entirely protect him from the
Butler, 672 A.2d at 809 (citation
omitted).
a more severe sentence
on his child pornography conviction was a result of his further criminal
conduct and not of the type of harm contemplated in the case law, namely
the harm to his reputation and an opportunity to advance in society. As
o deny the expunction of
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/5/2014
-7-