State v. Elliott
This text of 619 So. 2d 99 (State v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant, Keith D. Elliott, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to expunge various felony and misdemeanor arrests and criminal charges against him in Jefferson Parish which were either dismissed or not prosecuted. Without regard to whether the proper procedural vehicle for review of the trial court’s dismissal of the motion is by application for supervisory writs or by appeal, in the interest of judicial economy and expediency, we have reviewed the trial court’s ruling and for the reasons hereinafter stated vacate same and remand the case for further proceedings.
Keith Elliott was convicted of armed robbery in criminal proceedings before the 19th Judicial District Court. On November 16, 1981 he was adjudged a multiple felony offender and sentenced to a 35-year prison term. In February of 1991, Elliott filed in the 24th Judicial District Court a motion to expunge criminal records under LSA-R.S. 44:9.1 That motion sought expungement of defendant’s arrests in Jefferson Parish for various felonies and misdemeanors for which the charges were either refused without institution of prosecution or dismissed without the filing of charges, and [100]*100for which the time limits for institution of prosecution had expired. Without a hearing, the trial court issued an order on April 25, 1991 denying defendant’s motion to expunge based on the court’s previous denial of a similar expungement motion filed by defendant in 1988.
In denying defendant’s most recent motion to expunge, the trial court failed to conduct “a contradictory hearing with the arresting agency,” as required by LSA-R.S. 44:9C(2). Moreover, the trial court apparently interpreted LSA-R.S. 44:9E as barring expungement of any arrest, whether for misdemeanor or felony, when the movant is a convicted felon, as is the case here.
LSA-R.S. 44:9E prohibits expungement of a convicted felon’s arrests for felonies which do not result in a conviction. State v. Nettles, 375 So.2d 1339 (La.1979). No such prohibition against expungement exists, however, with respect to a convicted felon’s misdemeanor arrests which do not end in conviction.
Therefore, the April 25, 1991 order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to expunge criminal records is vacated and set aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a contradictory hearing as required by LAS-R.S. 44:9C(2) and then decide whether the particular charges are felonies which cannot expunged or misdemeanors which can be expunged.
MOTION TO EXPUNGE VACATED AND SET ASIDE; MATTER REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
619 So. 2d 99, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 1929, 1993 WL 166297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-elliott-lactapp-1993.