In previous constitutional challenges to the criminal records expungement scheme, this Court held that the former version of the statute was not "unconstitutional as applied to the appellant" because the " ‘statutory classification ... neither proceed[ed] along suspect lines nor infringe[d] fundamental constitutional rights[,]’ " and therefore, "must be upheld against equal protection if there is any rational basis for the classification." Jackson v. State , 124 Md. App. 59, 66, 720 A.2d 1210 (1998) (quoting Maryland Aggregates Association, Inc. v. State , 337 Md. 658, 673, 655 A.2d 886 (1995) ); see alsoWard v. State , 37 Md. App. 34, 375 A.2d 41 (1977) (holding that providing immediate right to expungement to acquitted defendants, but requiring a three-year wait by a defendant that received a nolle prosequi , was not unconstitutional, as applied, because the State could later choose to prosecute the petitioner).Reid, however, is precluded from requesting a declaratory judgment at this juncture, because he can seek redress through the expungement statute, an avenue he has not yet pursued.
"The [r]ule of [l]enity is intended to resolve an ambiguity, not create one where none exists." Jackson v. State, 124 Md.App. 59, 63-64 (1998) (holding that the rule of lenity was inapplicable where the relevant provision of the expungement statute pertaining to expungement of a conviction following a nolle prosequi was not ambiguous) (citation omitted). In this case, the circuit court did not err in determining that CP § 10-105(a)(11) was unambiguous and, therefore, it was unnecessary to resort to the rule of lenity to decide her petition for expungement.
"The [r]ule of [l]enity is intended to resolve an ambiguity, not create one where none exists." Jackson v. State, 124 Md.App. 59, 63-64 (1998) (holding that the rule of lenity was inapplicable where the relevant provision of the expungement statute pertaining to expungement of a conviction following a nolle prosequi was not ambiguous) (citation omitted).
We are satisfied that §§ 10-105(d) (e) unambiguously mandate the opportunity for the State's Attorney to file an objection within thirty days of service and that the court must conduct a hearing on the petition after any objection is noted. See Jackson v. State, 124 Md. App. 59, 64, 720 A.2d 1210 (1998) ("When interpreting statutory language, we give the words of the statute their ordinary and natural meaning absent some indication to the contrary."). Nelson presents us with two arguments as to why the circuit court's order of expungement ought to be affirmed. He directs us first to Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 10-105(c)(5), which provides that "[a] court may grant a petition for expungement at any time on a showing of good cause."