Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Com. v. A.M.R

887 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Com. v. A.M.R

25 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Wallace

    2012 Pa. Super. 109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)

    Moreover, "when a charge is withdrawn or nolle prosequied, the burden is always upon the Commonwealth to demonstrate why an arrest record should be retained." Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2005 (emphasis in original; citation omitted). Appellant's first issue essentially alleges that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of showing that its interests in preserving Appellant's non-conviction arrest records outweighed Appellant's right to be free from harm arising from the maintenance of those records and the trial court failed to conduct a proper Wexler balancing test.

  2. Commonwealth v. Wallace

    2012 Pa. Super. 109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Moreover, “when a charge is withdrawn or nolle prosequied, the burden is always upon the Commonwealth to demonstrate why an arrest record should be retained.” Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1269 (Pa.Super.2005) (emphasis in original; citation omitted). Appellant's first issue essentially alleges that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of showing that its interests in preserving Appellant's non-conviction arrest records outweighed Appellant's right to be free from harm arising from the maintenance of those records and the trial court failed to conduct a proper Wexler balancing test.

  3. Com. v. Hanna

    2009 Pa. Super. 3 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    In Hanna and Hollerbach, we remanded for factual determinations because the record was insufficient to determine the initial manner of disposition of the nolle prossed or dismissed charges that is necessary prior to the court applying Wexler or Lutz to the Appellants' expungement petitions.

    See Commonwealth v. Malone, [ 244 Pa.Super. 62,] 366 A.2d 584, 588 (Pa.Super. 1976) (noting possible effects of maintaining an arrest record, including economic and non-economic losses and injury to reputation). Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2005) (footnote omitted). ¶ 6 If the defendant is convicted of a crime, he is not entitled to expungement except under the extremely limited circumstances permitted by statute.

  4. Commonwealth v. Troyer

    1080 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021)

    While not central to my dissent, I fully agree with the concurrence in Hanna, in which Judge Klein explained why distinguishing a nolle prosequi and a dismissal of charges is inconsistent with binding precedent, as well as "the real world of a criminal courtroom[.]" 964 A.2d at 929 (Klein, J., concurring) (discussing In re Pflaum, 451 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. 1982); Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Rodland, 871 A.2d 216 (Pa. Super. 2005); and Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2005)). On July 13, 2005, the parties entered into a negotiated plea agreement, which is contained in the certified record.

  5. Com. v. V.A.M

    2009 Pa. Super. 156 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    See Commonwealth v. Malone, [244 Pa. Super. 62,] 366 A.2d 584, 588 (Pa. Super. 1976) (noting possible effects of maintaining an arrest record, including economic and non-economic losses and injury to reputation). Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 2005 PA Super 398, 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (footnote omitted). If the defendant is convicted of a crime, he is not entitled to expungement except under the extremely limited circumstances permitted by statute.

  6. Commonwealth v. Troyer

    1080 WDA 2020 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Aug. 18, 2021)

    While not central to my dissent, I fully agree with the concurrence in Hanna, in which Judge Klein explained why distinguishing a nolle prosequi and a dismissal of charges is inconsistent with binding precedent, as well as "the real world of a criminal courtroom[.]" 964 A.2d at 929 (Klein, J., concurring) (discussing In re Pflaum, 451 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. 1982); Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Rodland, 871 A.2d 216 (Pa. Super. 2005); and Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2005)). On July 13, 2005, the parties entered into a negotiated plea agreement, which is contained in the certified record.

  7. Commonwealth v. Moto

    23 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    In Moto, the court had before it the question of whether to expunge a criminal record when a defendant had been granted a new trial and the Commonwealth declined to re-try him because it was unable to locate the victim.

    The decision to grant or deny a petition to expunge rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review that court's decision for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Waughtel, 999 A.2d 623, 624-25 (Pa.Super. 2010); Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2005). Judicial analysis and evaluation of a petition to expunge depend upon the manner of disposition of the charges against the petitioner.

  8. Commonwealth v. Wallace

    J-74A-2013 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2014)

    The Superior Court rejected this rationale based on its reading of precedential decisions rejecting " 'general record-keeping interest' and 'future case' arguments." Id. at 453-54 (citing Wexler, supra at 882; Commonwealth v. D.M., 663 A.2d 792, 793 (Pa. Super. 1995); Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Having rejected the trial court's Wexler analysis, the Superior Court then concluded that "some of Appell[ee]'s non-conviction arrest records may be eligible for expungement."

  9. Commonwealth v. Wallace

    97 A.3d 310 (Pa. 2014)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that during incarceration an inmate did not have a due process right to expunction of fingerprints, photographs, and arrest records not resulting in convictions because the risk of the erroneous deprivation of his private interest in his reputation is slim; he had a vast criminal history including convictions that would not be expunged from his criminal history and the expunction of the other charges would not erase the stigma that follows a convicted felon; and the Commonwealth had a compelling interest in retaining the records because they could be used in further penalization should he commit another offense in prison or for use by the Board in future parole decisions

    The Superior Court rejected this rationale based on its reading of precedential decisions rejecting “ ‘general record-keeping interest’ and ‘future case’ arguments.” Id. at 453–54 (citing Wexler, supra at 882; Commonwealth v. D.M., 444 Pa.Super. 299, 663 A.2d 792, 793 (1995); Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1270 (Pa.Super.2005)). Having rejected the trial court's Wexler analysis, the Superior Court then concluded that “some of Appell[ee]'s non-conviction arrest records may be eligible for expungement.”

  10. C.S. v. Allegheny Cnty. Dep't of Behavioral Health

    159 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 18, 2022)

    "Our well-settled standard of review in cases involving a motion for expunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion." In re Keyes, 83 A.3d 1016, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2013) 4 (citing Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Section 6111.1(g)(2) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act addresses the process for expunging records of an involuntary commitment.