Opinion
Crim. Case No. 1503016773
01-26-2017
K.M. v. State of Delaware
Attorney Name Anne Podczasy
Form 2821
Dev 8/16 ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE RECORD PURSUANT TO 10 DEL. C. § 1017(C)
| PetitionerK [Redacted] M [Redacted] |
| Street Address (including Apt)[Redacted] |
| P.O. Box Number |
| City/State/Zip Code[Redacted] |
| Attorney NameAnne Podczasy |
| Interpreter needed? [ ] Yes [×] NoLanguage |
ORDER
On this 26th day of January 2017, the Petitioner having had a misdemeanor or violation case terminated in his or her favor and the Court having reviewed a name-based Delaware criminal background check conducted through the Delaware Justice Information System and finding that the Petitioner otherwise qualifies for a mandatory expungement, it is hereby Ordered that the juvenile's criminal history be expunged. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all indicia of arrest, including police and court records, and any electronic records relating to the arrest shall, within 60 days of this Order, be removed from the files and placed in the control of the Supervisor of the State Bureau of Identification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that copies of this Court's Order be delivered to the Petitioner or Petitioner's attorney, the Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services and the State Bureau of Identification. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1019(c), any offense for which records have been expunged does not have to be disclosed as an arrest by the Petitioner for any reason.
ADDENDUM ATTACHED
So Ordered this Date: 26 January 2017
/s/_________
ROBERT BURTON COONIN
Judge
THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ADDENDUM TO ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXPUNGEMENT
The Court has before it a number of Motions for Expungement. The State opposes each of the motions on the basis that the motions were not made in the course of a "proceeding" as defined by 10 Del. C. § 1017(c). It appears the Attorney General's Office seeks to have the Court impose restrictive definition of "proceeding," limited to a trial or hearing in open court. The Court rejects this limited definition and finds that the statute's purpose, as well as the legal definition of "proceeding," implies a more expansive definition than the one asserted by the State. Accordingly, the Court grants the herein expungements pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1017(c).
DISCUSSION
The Motions for Expungement before the Court fall into four (4) categories: 1) Motions to Expunge following the successful completion of arbitration; 2) Motions to Expunge filed during the pendency of a Motion to Dismiss for speedy trial violation; 3) Entries of nolle prosequi by the State in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Expungement; and, 4) Entries of nolle prosequi by the State and the Defendant concurrently requesting expungement on the Case Review Status form filed with the Court. The State opposes each of the Motions on the basis that the Motions were not made in the course of a "proceeding" as defined in 10 Del. C. § 1017(c) and therefore cannot be granted. The State asserts that in each of these cases, expungement can only be granted by the filing of a Petition under 10 Del. C. § 1017(a).
10 Del. C. § 1017 was amended in 2016 to allow for the filing of an expungement immediately upon the termination of a case in favor of a child. 10 Del. C. § 1017(c); the amendment, provides:
During the Court proceeding [emphasis added] where any misdemeanor or violation case is terminated in favor of the child, the Court sua sponte, or upon request of any party, may immediately order expungement of the juvenile criminal history, including all indicia of arrest. Prior to ordering expungement pursuant to this paragraph, the Court shall review a name-based Delaware criminal background check conducted through the Delaware Justice Information System (DELJIS), in order to ensure eligibility. In cases reviewed by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the children must otherwise qualify for expungement under this section. The Court has discretion to deny immediate expungement and require compliance with § 1015(d).The granting of an expungement immediately upon the termination of a case in favor of the child, as provided for in 10 Del. C. § 1017(c), allows the expungement to be expedited. It also assists the child, as his or her record is expunged immediately upon termination of the case rather than having the child file a separate Petition and incur the added expense of obtaining a certified Delaware Criminal Justice Information System (DELJIS) record and paying a separate filing fee to the Court. Although 10 Del. C. § 1017(a) still allows for the filing of a separate Petition at a later time, the amended statute expedites the process and furthers the Court's goal of rehabilitation for juvenile defendants by allowing the Court to immediately expunge their records at the conclusion of a case terminated in their favor.
The State filed Answers to the Motions for Expungement, which assert that "The Petition before the Court is being presented after the Court proceeding has concluded" and therefore Petitioner must file a Petition for Expungement pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1017(a). In each of the Motions before the Court, the scheduled "hearing" had indeed concluded. Thus, it appears the State seeks to have the Court impose a restrictive definition of "proceeding" limited to a trial or hearing in open court. However, the Court finds that the State's view of a "proceeding" is overly restrictive, both with regard to its legal definition and as implied by the statute itself. The Court interprets the term "proceeding" within 10 Del. C. § 1017(c) as encompassing any means of seeking redress from a judicial agency. Therefore, the Motions for Expungement seek relief from the Court within the meaning of "proceeding." Below, the Court outlines its findings with regard to both the legal definition of a "proceeding" and the purpose of 10 Del. C. § 1017(c).
Legal Definition of "Proceeding"
10 Del. C. § 1017(c) explicitly provides that a Motion for Expungement may be immediately granted during a Court "proceeding," According to case law and legal treatise, a "proceeding" encompasses more than a mere hearing or trial in open Court; rather, a "proceeding" is "any procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency." On the other hand, a "hearing" is defined as a "judicial session, usually open to the public, held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or of law, sometimes with witnesses testifying." Black's Law Dictionary cites the following in reference to a "proceeding:"
"Proceeding," BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
"Hearing," BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
'Proceeding' is a word much used to express the business done in courts. A proceeding in court is an act done by the authority or direction of the court, express or implied. It is more comprehensive than the word 'action,' but it may include in its general sense all the steps taken or measures adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action, including the pleadings and judgment. As applied to actions, the term 'proceeding' may include—(1) the institution of the action; (2) the appearance of the defendant; (3) all ancillary or provisional steps, such as arrest, attachment of property, garnishment, injunction, writ of ne exeat; (4) the pleadings; (5) the taking of testimony before trial; (6) all motions made in the action; (7) the trial; (8) the judgment; (9) the execution; (10) proceedings supplementary to execution, in code practice; (11) the taking of the appeal or writ of error; (12) the remittitur, or sending back of the record to the lower court from the appellate or reviewing court; (13) the enforcement of the judgment, or a new trial, as may be directed by the court of last resort.
Edwin E. Bryant, THE LAW OF PLEADING UNDER THE CODES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3-4 (2d ed. 1899).
Case law also suggests that the definition of a "proceeding" is more expansive than that of a hearing. As noted by the U.S. District Court in Florida in 2015, a "proceeding" encompasses a series of steps in the enforcement of laws or remedies:
The Court views the thrust of the definitions in Black's to be that for something to be a "civil proceeding", there must be some sort of forum and some sort of decision maker involved. This is consistent with the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Phillips, 126 So.3d 186 (Fla.2013). In Raymond James, the court held that the phrase "proceeding" in a statute of limitations statute encompassed an arbitration proceeding, because an arbitration proceeding takes place in a tribunal before a person whose job is to render decisions. Id. at 190-91. The Court quoted the definition of "proceeding" in Black's Law Dictionary as "[a]ny procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency." Id. at 190. The Raymond James Court also quotes the definition of "proceeding" in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law as being "similar" to this definition. The definition quoted by the Court is: 'a particular step or
series of steps in the enforcement, adjudication, or administration of rights, remedies, laws or regulations.'
Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1280 (S.D. Fla. 2015).
The expansive definition of "proceeding" is also entrenched in legal history. As the Court of Appeals of New York noted in 1852,
The term "proceedings," in its more general sense in law, means all the steps, or measures, adopted in the prosecution or defense of an action. It may mean more than the record history of the case, which was the definition of the learned counsel for the defendant. It is, undoubtedly, sometimes used in this restrictive sense. In its ordinary acceptation, the word, when unqualified except by the subject to which it is applied, includes the whole of the subject. Thus the proceedings of a suit embrace all matters that occur in its progress judicially. Proceedings upon a trial, all that occurs in that part of the litigation.Each of the above definitions, as expounded by legal treatise and case law, both recent and not, elucidate an expansive definition of "proceeding" which encompasses more than a mere hearing, Rather, each suggest that a "proceeding" includes all means of seeking redress from a judicial agency, including all the steps necessary to seek that relief. It does not conclude upon the termination of a hearing date, but rather encompasses all actions relating to that action, such as appeals, Motions to Reargue, and, indeed, the filing of a Motion for Expungement relating to that action.
"Proceeding," WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY. The Court notes that the current definition of "proceeding" in Webster's Dictionary provides: "The course of procedure in the prosecution of an action at law" (WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY).
Morewood v. Hollister, 6 NY 309, (1852) (Court of Appeals of New York). --------
Purpose of 10 Del . C. § 1017(c)
In addition to the case law and treatise supporting an expanded definition of "proceeding," the purpose of the amended statute implies an expanded definition as well. The statute was amended by the Delaware General Assembly in 2016 in order to expedite the process of juvenile expungements in certain cases and make it easier for children, especially indigent children, to have their records expunged. As noted by the Court, before the statute was amended, a child had to file a separate Petition and incur the costs of receiving a new criminal history report. The amendment made the process easier for both the Court and the child, streamlining the procedure and enforcing the Court's goal of rehabilitation for youth offenders.
The State requests that the Court reject this process for the herein Motions. However, the statute was amended to specifically provide for the relief requested by the herein Motions. Therefore, imposing the State's definition is contrary to the purpose of the statute, which was amended to expedite the expungement process.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court finds that the legal definition of "proceeding" within 10 Del. C. § 1017(c) encompasses the filing of a Motion for Expungement in each of the four categories of expungements before the Court: 1) Motion for Expungement following the successful completion of arbitration; 2) Motions to Expunge filed during the pendency of a Motion to Dismiss for speedy trial violation; 3) Entries of nolle prosequi by the State in response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and, 4) Entries of nolle prosequi by the State and the Defendant subsequently requesting expungement on the case review status form filed with the Court. In each of these cases, the Motion is part of the overall proceeding before the Court and therefore each Motion qualifies for the requested relief under the statute.
Accordingly, the Motions for Expungement before the Court are well within the bounds afforded by 10 Del. C. § 1017(c) and are hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
ROBERT BURTON COONIN, JUDGE RBC/cap IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. K [Redacted] , Respondent I.D. No. 1503016773 ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 25th day of October, A.D., 2016, the foregoing Motion having been heard and considered, it is hereby; ORDERED:
[source file illegible]
/s/_________
JUDGE