In Watson v. State, 329 So.3d 1215 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021), this Court examined a similar issue in which the appellant argued section 97-3-2 violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution by defining burglary of a dwelling as a crime of violence, as section 97-3-2 made him ineligible for expungement, and his crime occurred before the statute was enacted. Id. at 1217-18 (¶¶7-8).

¶4. Expungement is statutory in nature, and we employ a de novo standard of review for statutory interpretations. Watson v. State, 329 So.3d 1215, 1217 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Robertson v. State, 158 So.3d 280, 281 (¶3) (Miss. 2015)). However, we review the findings of fact here for clear error.

"In undergoing our de novo review, we also bear in mind that ‘expungement is an act of legislative grace, and no common law right to expungement of criminal records exists.’ " Mack, 355 So. 3d at 794 (¶20) (quoting Watson v. State, 329 So. 3d 1215, 1217 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)). [3] ¶16.

Thus, an appellate court employs a de novo standard of review. Watson v. State, 329 So. 3d 1215, 1217 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). ¶19. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-15-26 (Rev. 2020) grants "a circuit or county court the power to expunge a felony conviction pursuant to a guilty plea under certain conditions."

Thus, an appellate court employs a de novo standard of review. Watson v. State, 329 So.3d 1215, 1217 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

¶20. Because "[e]xpungement is statutory in nature," this Court "employ[s] a de novo standard of review." Watson v. State , 329 So. 3d 1215, 1217 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Robertson v. State , 158 So. 3d 280, 281 (¶3) (Miss. 2015) ). In undergoing our de novo review, we also bear in mind that "expungement is an act of legislative grace[,] ... and no common law right to expungement of criminal records exists."