Opinion
A22-1271
02-14-2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. T. A. G., Jr., Appellant.
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-13-2277
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In July 2013, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant T.A.G. with one count of felony third-degree assault related to an assault that occurred in December 2012. T.A.G. pleaded guilty, and the district court convicted T.A.G. of a misdemeanor. The district court stayed the sentence, and T.A.G. was placed on supervised probation for one year. T.A.G. was later discharged from probation.
2. In May 2022, T.A.G. filed a petition for expungement and included with the petition a letter and supporting documents.
3. T.A.G. stated in his letter that an expungement would allow him "to be at some of [his] children's sporting events and outings w[h]ere a background check will not hamper [his] efforts of being an involved parent and volunteer." He also described his volunteer involvement in the community and his commitment to his family. T.A.G. stated he "would like to carry on with our family quality times of going traveling, fishing, riding our ATV,S [sic] and one day regain my hunting license so that we can all experience the joy of outdoor living." Lastly, T.A.G. wrote he sought expungement "in hopes that the court will see that I have grown up and out of that juvenile state of mind" and that it would see "that now and going forward [he is] a positive and caring man [that] is no longer considered a threat to public safety nor to any other person within any communities."
4. In July 2022, the Dakota County Attorney's Office objected to T.A.G.'s petition for expungement, specifically pointing to the nature and severity of the underlying crime. The county argued the factual circumstances that led to T.A.G.'s conviction were the "type of violent behavior [that] is particularly concerning and should remain a public record." The county relied on its letter brief to the district court, did not submit any other evidence, and waived its appearance at the expungement hearing.
5. The district court issued an order denying T.A.G.'s petition for expungement. T.A.G. appeals.
6. We review a district court's denial of an expungement petition for an abuse of discretion. State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276, 279 (Minn. 2013). Accordingly, we will not overturn the district court's decision unless it was arbitrary or capricious, based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, or contrary to the facts in the record. State v. R.H.B., 821 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Minn. 2012). We review legal conclusions de novo. State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013). We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. State v. A.S.E., 835 N.W.2d 513, 517 (Minn.App. 2013). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is "manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not supported by the evidence as a whole." State v. H.A., 716 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.App. 2006) (quotation omitted).
7. The legislature has identified specific circumstances in which an individual may petition to expunge a criminal record. See Minn. Stat. § 609A.02 (2022). There is no dispute T.A.G. was authorized to petition for expungement because he "was convicted of or received a stayed sentence for a petty misdemeanor or misdemeanor and has not been convicted of a new crime for at least two years since discharge of the sentence for the crime." Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3). Therefore, his expungement petition is "to be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence that it would yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public and public safety of: (1) sealing the record; and (2) burdening the court and public authorities to issue, enforce, and monitor an expungement order." Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a) (2022). The statute requires the district court to consider 12 factors in determining whether expungement should be granted. Id., subd. 5(c) (2022).
While district courts have both statutory and inherent powers to grant expungement relief, State v. L.W.J., 717 N.W.2d 451, 455 (Minn.App. 2006), the district court addressed only statutory expungement, and T.A.G. does not appear to raise the issue on appeal of the district court's inherent power to grant expungement.
8. The district court considered the 12 statutory factors and concluded that expungement was not warranted. In relevant part, the district court found the underlying nature and severity of the crime to be serious and that T.A.G. was fully responsible for the crime. The district court also found that the petition did "not contain any recitation that the [criminal] record has created lost opportunities in the area of employment, housing or other necessities of life." Additionally, the district court found that the county attorney "correctly notes that the public has a value in accessing the data for routine purposes, such as licensing and employment."
9. The record supports the district court's findings. The underlying offense involved a dispute between T.A.G. and another driver. T.A.G. punched the other driver's face, knocking the other driver unconscious. The other driver suffered dental injuries and a possible broken nose and concussion. While T.A.G.'s petition expressed his desire for expungement in order to be involved with his family, including being at his children's sporting events and regaining his hunting license to have outdoor experiences with his family, his petition did not include any indication his criminal record was affecting his employment, housing, or other necessities. The county's letter also noted that expungement "would deprive the public of pertinent information that is likely to be considered in everyday situations such as in applications for professional licensure, housing, and employment."
10. Because the district court considered the relevant factors and exercised its discretion based on evidence in the record, we have no basis to conclude the district court's decision was arbitrary or capricious, based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, or contrary to the facts in the record. R.H.B., 821 N.W.2d at 822. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying T.A.G.'s expungement petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.