State v. Chesley6/22/2004
Submitted on Briefs: January 13, 2004
On July 30, 1998, Dustin Chesley pled guilty to the offense of theft, a felony pursuant to § 45-6-301, MCA. The State fully discharged Chesley's sentence as of January 18, 2003. On April 23, 2003, Chesley petitioned the Eighteenth Judicial District Court to seal and expunge his record. The State did not enter an appearance or object to such motion. On May 19, 2003, the District Court denied Chesley's motion on the grounds that it did not possess the authority to expunge his record. It is from this Order that Chesley appeals.
BACKGROUND
After Chesley pled guilty to theft, a felony pursuant to § 45-6-301, MCA, on September 1, 1998, the District Court deferred imposition of sentence for a three year period subject to delineated conditions. On January 31, 2000, the District Court revoked Chesley's deferred sentence based on the State's October 7, 1999, petition to revoke the deferred imposition of sentence because Chesley had violated numerous conditions of his deferred imposition of sentence. It then sentenced him to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for five years suspending two years of such sentence and recommending him for Boot Camp placement. The court issued this sentence subject to numerous conditions.
Upon request from Chesley, on March 23, 2001, the District Court reduced his sentence to DOC by suspending it upon his successful completion of Boot Camp and the Great Falls Aftercare Program. Chesley also filed a motion with the court for a final discharge, however, on August 27, 2001, the court denied his request and clarified that his sentence expired on January 18, 2003, and he remained on probation until then.
In his brief, Chesley stated that he has found it difficult to obtain jobs on a few occasions citing examples of where Firestone and Smoker Friendly were unable to offer him a job due to his criminal record. Furthermore, he has determined that he wants to proceed down a certain career path that requires a clean record, whereby a felony would preclude his ability to pursue this career. Therefore, on April 23, 2003, Chesley filed a motion with the District Court requesting it to seal and expunge his criminal record. On May 19, 2003, the District Court denied this motion because it lacked authority to grant such request. Chesley appeals from this Order and raises the following issues:
1. Whether Montana courts have inherent power and jurisdiction to expunge criminal records.
2. Whether the District Court erred when it declined to expunge Chesley's criminal record.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of statutory interpretation is plenary, therefore we review a district court's legal conclusion of a question of law to determine whether it is correct. State v. McNally, 2002 MT 160, 5, 310 Mont. 396, 5, 50 P.3d 1080, 5.
DISCUSSION
ISSUE ONE
Whether Montana courts have inherent power and jurisdiction to expunge criminal records.
In its Order denying Chesley's request for expungement of his felony record, the District Court reviewed the legislative history of § 46-18-204, MCA. The 1987 version of the statute provided a mechanism for automatic expungement of a record, however, the legislature amended the statute and in 1989, it deleted this expungement mechanism. It follows, the court concluded, that the legislative intent behind this deletion was to prohibit expungement. The District Court found that " f the legislature had intended for the Court to have the power to expunge a record, the legislature would have specifically provided that power." As such, the District Court
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|