RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3157-22
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL/JUVENILE RECORDS OF N.R.C.1 __________________________
Submitted October 15, 2024 – Decided October 22, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. XP-23-002197.
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
This unopposed appeal by the State stems from the trial court 's June 15,
2023, order granting N.R.C.'s application for expungement under what is known
1 We use initials for the expungement applicant in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:52-15 and R. 1:38-3(c)(7). as the "clean slate" Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3. Because the expungement was
granted prematurely before the Act's ten-year required waiting period was met,
we reverse and remand to the trial court to enter an order vacating its
expungement order.
We briefly state the pertinent chronology. On November 7, 2008, N.R.C.
was sentenced to a two-year term of probation with applicable monetary
penalties, based on her guilty plea to third-degree possession of a controlled
dangerous substance with intent to distribute it in a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
7. She completed that probationary sentence on February 14, 2014.
Subsequently, on June 1, 2018, N.R.C. was sentenced to a one-year term
of probation with applicable monetary penalties, based on her guilty plea to
fourth-degree credit-card theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6(c)(1). She completed that
second probationary sentence on June 5, 2019.
On February 9, 2023, N.R.C. filed a petition for expungement of her
criminal record. The State objected to the petition, pointing out that under the
expungement statute's "clean slate" provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, petitioner
had been convicted of two indictable offenses and had completed her most recent
probationary sentence on June 5, 2019. Hence, she would not be eligible for
expungement until ten years had passed, i.e. on June 5, 2029.
A-3157-22 2 In an order entered on June 14, 2023, the trial court initially agreed with
the State and dismissed the expungement petition. However, petitioner renewed
her petition and sought a hearing.
The hearing took place on June 15, 2023. The State reiterated its objection
on the record. Petitioner was then placed under oath, and she explained to the
court why it should grant her relief "in the interest of justice." She described
how she had turned her life around since her two convictions, completing college
and the Straight and Narrow Program. She further stated she had been offered
three "career opportunities that [were] life-changing," but which fell through
because her criminal record had not been expunged.
In an oral opinion, the trial court granted the petition. The court noted
that "a few years ha[d] passed" since petitioner's conviction for fourth-degree
credit-card theft and reasoned that the imposition of only a one-year
probationary sentence was "some indication that [she was] amenable to
rehabilitation and [she] did complete it in one year." After finding "that society's
interest in keeping this record for a number of further years is outweighed
substantially by [petitioner's] interest in getting it expunged," the court
concluded, "I'm going to grant [t]he expungement. And [the] State's valid
A-3157-22 3 position is noted for the record, but in the interest of justice, I'm granting the
expungement."
In its memorializing order, the court stated that it "considered the degree
and nature of the offenses in the petition and probationary sentence imposed and
completed successfully," and that it "found that compelling circumstances exist
for granting the petition based upon [petitioner's] testimony . . . regarding the
hardship upon her and her dependent."
The State now appeals, asserting the trial court's disposition is premature
and not authorized by the statutory scheme. We are presented with no legal
counterargument.
Expungement in New Jersey is governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32.1,
provisions which were intended by the Legislature "to establish 'a
comprehensive statutory scheme for the expungement of criminal records"' and
"create 'an equitable system of expungement of indictable and nonindictable
offenses as well as of arrest records.'" State v. Gomes, 253 N.J. 6, 21 (2023)
(quoting State v. T.P.M., 189 N.J. Super. 360, 364 (App. Div. 1983)).
In 2019, the Legislature reformed the expungement system, in pertinent
part, "including 'clean slate' expungement for those who had not committed an
offense in ten years, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3." Id. at 22. Unlike N.J.S.A. 2C:52-
A-3157-22 4 2(a), under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, qualified individuals with multiple, separate
convictions may apply for expungement of all eligible convictions.
Of critical importance here, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3(b) directs: "The person,
if eligible, may present the expungement application after the expiration of a
period of ten years from the date of the person's most recent conviction, payment
of any court-ordered financial assessment, satisfactory completion of probation
or parole, or release from incarceration, whichever is later."2 (Emphasis added).
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3(b) clearly and unambiguously
prohibits a person from petitioning for a "clean slate" expungement until "after
the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of the person's most recent
. . . satisfactory completion of probation." See Cannel, N.J. Criminal Code
Annotated, cmt. 10 on N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 (2024) (noting that "[N.J.S.A.] 2C:52-
5.3 provides for expungement of all offenses (but not their fines, etc.) after ten
years"). "Compared to the ordinary expungement pathway, 'clean slate'
expungement has softer eligibility requirements but a harsher waiting period of
ten years." Matter of K.M.G., 447 N.J. Super. 167, 175-76 (App. Div. 2023);
2 The Legislature revised this provision on January 11, 2024, to add eligibility for persons who did not complete the payment of court-ordered financial assessment within ten years, but who had otherwise met the ten-year requirement. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3 (amended Jan. 2024). A-3157-22 5 see N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) (imposing a five-year waiting period for ordinary
expungement). "The Legislature's apparent intention in creating the 'clean slate'
option was to expand eligibility while ensuring, with a harsher waiting period,
that only the least likely to re-offend could benefit from it." K.M.G., 477 N.J.
Super. at 179.
Individuals who apply for expungement have an initial burden to satisfy
the requirements of the expungement statute by a preponderance of the evidence.
In re D.H., 204 N.J. 7, 18 (2010). Once petitioners satisfy that burden, it "shifts
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3157-22
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL/JUVENILE RECORDS OF N.R.C.1 __________________________
Submitted October 15, 2024 – Decided October 22, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. XP-23-002197.
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Patrick F. Galdieri, II, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
This unopposed appeal by the State stems from the trial court 's June 15,
2023, order granting N.R.C.'s application for expungement under what is known
1 We use initials for the expungement applicant in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:52-15 and R. 1:38-3(c)(7). as the "clean slate" Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3. Because the expungement was
granted prematurely before the Act's ten-year required waiting period was met,
we reverse and remand to the trial court to enter an order vacating its
expungement order.
We briefly state the pertinent chronology. On November 7, 2008, N.R.C.
was sentenced to a two-year term of probation with applicable monetary
penalties, based on her guilty plea to third-degree possession of a controlled
dangerous substance with intent to distribute it in a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
7. She completed that probationary sentence on February 14, 2014.
Subsequently, on June 1, 2018, N.R.C. was sentenced to a one-year term
of probation with applicable monetary penalties, based on her guilty plea to
fourth-degree credit-card theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6(c)(1). She completed that
second probationary sentence on June 5, 2019.
On February 9, 2023, N.R.C. filed a petition for expungement of her
criminal record. The State objected to the petition, pointing out that under the
expungement statute's "clean slate" provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, petitioner
had been convicted of two indictable offenses and had completed her most recent
probationary sentence on June 5, 2019. Hence, she would not be eligible for
expungement until ten years had passed, i.e. on June 5, 2029.
A-3157-22 2 In an order entered on June 14, 2023, the trial court initially agreed with
the State and dismissed the expungement petition. However, petitioner renewed
her petition and sought a hearing.
The hearing took place on June 15, 2023. The State reiterated its objection
on the record. Petitioner was then placed under oath, and she explained to the
court why it should grant her relief "in the interest of justice." She described
how she had turned her life around since her two convictions, completing college
and the Straight and Narrow Program. She further stated she had been offered
three "career opportunities that [were] life-changing," but which fell through
because her criminal record had not been expunged.
In an oral opinion, the trial court granted the petition. The court noted
that "a few years ha[d] passed" since petitioner's conviction for fourth-degree
credit-card theft and reasoned that the imposition of only a one-year
probationary sentence was "some indication that [she was] amenable to
rehabilitation and [she] did complete it in one year." After finding "that society's
interest in keeping this record for a number of further years is outweighed
substantially by [petitioner's] interest in getting it expunged," the court
concluded, "I'm going to grant [t]he expungement. And [the] State's valid
A-3157-22 3 position is noted for the record, but in the interest of justice, I'm granting the
expungement."
In its memorializing order, the court stated that it "considered the degree
and nature of the offenses in the petition and probationary sentence imposed and
completed successfully," and that it "found that compelling circumstances exist
for granting the petition based upon [petitioner's] testimony . . . regarding the
hardship upon her and her dependent."
The State now appeals, asserting the trial court's disposition is premature
and not authorized by the statutory scheme. We are presented with no legal
counterargument.
Expungement in New Jersey is governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32.1,
provisions which were intended by the Legislature "to establish 'a
comprehensive statutory scheme for the expungement of criminal records"' and
"create 'an equitable system of expungement of indictable and nonindictable
offenses as well as of arrest records.'" State v. Gomes, 253 N.J. 6, 21 (2023)
(quoting State v. T.P.M., 189 N.J. Super. 360, 364 (App. Div. 1983)).
In 2019, the Legislature reformed the expungement system, in pertinent
part, "including 'clean slate' expungement for those who had not committed an
offense in ten years, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3." Id. at 22. Unlike N.J.S.A. 2C:52-
A-3157-22 4 2(a), under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, qualified individuals with multiple, separate
convictions may apply for expungement of all eligible convictions.
Of critical importance here, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3(b) directs: "The person,
if eligible, may present the expungement application after the expiration of a
period of ten years from the date of the person's most recent conviction, payment
of any court-ordered financial assessment, satisfactory completion of probation
or parole, or release from incarceration, whichever is later."2 (Emphasis added).
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3(b) clearly and unambiguously
prohibits a person from petitioning for a "clean slate" expungement until "after
the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of the person's most recent
. . . satisfactory completion of probation." See Cannel, N.J. Criminal Code
Annotated, cmt. 10 on N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 (2024) (noting that "[N.J.S.A.] 2C:52-
5.3 provides for expungement of all offenses (but not their fines, etc.) after ten
years"). "Compared to the ordinary expungement pathway, 'clean slate'
expungement has softer eligibility requirements but a harsher waiting period of
ten years." Matter of K.M.G., 447 N.J. Super. 167, 175-76 (App. Div. 2023);
2 The Legislature revised this provision on January 11, 2024, to add eligibility for persons who did not complete the payment of court-ordered financial assessment within ten years, but who had otherwise met the ten-year requirement. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3 (amended Jan. 2024). A-3157-22 5 see N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) (imposing a five-year waiting period for ordinary
expungement). "The Legislature's apparent intention in creating the 'clean slate'
option was to expand eligibility while ensuring, with a harsher waiting period,
that only the least likely to re-offend could benefit from it." K.M.G., 477 N.J.
Super. at 179.
Individuals who apply for expungement have an initial burden to satisfy
the requirements of the expungement statute by a preponderance of the evidence.
In re D.H., 204 N.J. 7, 18 (2010). Once petitioners satisfy that burden, it "shifts
to the State to 'demonstrat[e] by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a
statutory bar or that the petition should not be granted.'" Id. at 18 (quoting In re
G.R., 395 N.J. Super. 428, 431 (App. Div. 2007)).
Section 14 of the statute outlines the grounds for the denial of an
expungement petition, including those sought under the "clean slate" provision.
N.J.S.A. 2C:52-14. The grounds for denial include but not limited to: if "[a]ny
statutory prerequisite . . . is not fulfilled or there is any other statutory basis for
denying relief," and if "[t]he need for the availability of the records outweighs
the desirability of having a person freed from any disabilities as otherwise
provided in" the statute. Id. at (a) to (b); see also D.H., 204 N.J. at 18.
When interpreting a statute, a court's first step is to look to the plain
A-3157-22 6 meaning of its language. Bergen Com. Bank v. Sisler, 157 N.J. 188, 202 (1999).
If the plain language "clearly reveals the Legislature's intent, the inquiry is
over." State v. Harper, 229 N.J. 228, 237-38 (2017). "[C]ourts must not 'rewrite
a plainly-written enactment of the Legislature nor presume that the Legislature
intended something other than that expressed by way of the plain language. '" In
re R.K., 475 N.J. Super. 535, 536 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting State v. Frye, 217
N.J. 566, 575 (2014)).
The plain language in N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3 clearly requires a ten-year
waiting period before eligibility for expungement under the "clean slate" statute.
The State correctly notes that because N.R.C. completed her most recent
prohibitionary sentence in June 2019, she was required to wait until June 2029
to petition for a "clean slate" expungement.
The trial court was permitted to consider the public interest, the degree
and nature of petitioner's conduct, and her need for expungement only after it
established that she was eligible for the expungement under the statute. Hence,
the court's analysis here of those equities was unfortunately misplaced and
premature.
Although it is admirable that petitioner apparently has turned her life
around, and we appreciate that her criminal record is impeding her opportunities,
A-3157-22 7 she simply does not qualify yet for "clean slate" expungement. The ten-year
waiting period imposed by the Legislature must be enforced.
Reversed. We remand this matter to the trial court to enter an order
promptly vacating its expungement order.
A-3157-22 8