In re C.M.H.

1

In Re: Petition of C.M.H., for Expungement of Records

No. 22-0339

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

May 16, 2023

Wetzel County 21-P-26H

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner C.M.H.^[1] appeals the April 4, 2022, order of the Circuit Court of Wetzel County summarily denying his petition for expungement of a misdemeanor conviction for battery.^[2] The dispositive issue petitioner raises in this appeal is whether the circuit court's summary denial of his petition for expungement constituted an abuse of discretion.

Upon our review, we conclude that, under our well-established caselaw, the circuit court abused its discretion in summarily denying petitioner's petition for expungement. Therefore we reverse the circuit court's April 4, 2022, order and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. We find that this case satisfies the "limited circumstances" requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and is appropriate for disposition by a memorandum decision.

On the night of July 16, 2016, at a bar in New Martinsville, West Virginia, petitioner had a conflict with his sister, and both of them reacted physically. Petitioner was asked to leave the bar, and, while he was exiting, he hit a doorman who grabbed him. Thereafter, the police responded to the bar based upon reports that petitioner was causing a disturbance. Once at the bar, the police arrested petitioner and charged him with committing a battery on the bar's doorman, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-2-9(c) ("the battery statute").^[3] The police also interviewed petitioner's sister at the bar, and, at petitioner's sister's request, did not charge petitioner with committing a domestic battery against her.

Petitioner pled guilty to committing a battery on the bar's doorman. Accordingly, the Magistrate Court of Wetzel County convicted petitioner of a battery and sentenced him to thirty days of incarceration with one day of credit for time served. The magistrate court granted petitioner's motion for an alternative sentence, suspended the thirty-day jail sentence and placed petitioner on one year of unsupervised probation. Petitioner's probation conditions included a no-contact order regarding the bar's doorman, who was identified as the victim. Petitioner successfully completed his probation in July of 2017. Subsequently, on December 13, 2021 petitioner filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-26, seeking the expungement of his misdemeanor battery conviction. The circuit court, by an order entered on April 4, 2022, summarily denied the petition.

Petitioner now appeals the April 4, 2022, summary denial of his expungement petition. "'This Court reviews a circuit court's order granting or denying expungement of criminal records for an abuse of discretion.' Syllabus point 1, In re A.N.T., 238 W.Va. 701, 798 S.E.2d 623 (2017)." Syl. Pt. 1, In re I.S.A., 244 W.Va. 162, 852 S.E.2d 229 (2020). "Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syl. pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995).

Initially, the State argues that this Court should dismiss petitioner's appeal pursuant to Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides, in pertinent part:

Argument: The brief must contain an argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and law presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on, under headings that correspond with the assignments of error. The argument must contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the lower tribunal. The . . . Supreme Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal.

The State argues that petitioner's two-page brief fails to provide the applicable standard of review, cite any authorities beyond cursory references to West Virginia Code § 61-11-26, set forth assignments of error, or supply specific references to his appendix. Petitioner acknowledges his unfamiliarity with the proper way of presenting a legal argument and asks this Court to consider his appeal due to his self-represented status.

The State concedes that "it is clear that [p]etitioner challenges the circuit court's decision [summarily] denying his petition for expungement based upon its reliance on an allegedly 'invalid reason.'" Based upon our review of petitioner's brief, we accept the State's concession, find that the dismissal of the appeal is unnecessary, and proceed to review the sole issue that petitioner raises. See Franklin v. Pence, 128 W.Va. 353, 356, 36 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1945) (recognizing that the assignments of error were general in nature making it "difficult to determine the exact points relied upon for reversal[,]" and causing the Court to rely upon "statements in the brief" that were "considered as indicating the main grounds of attack upon the judgment").

The circuit court summarily denied the petition pursuant to West Virginia Code § 61-11-26(i)(4), which provides for summary denial "if the court determines the petition discloses on its face or, based upon supporting documentation . . ., discloses that the petitioner, as a matter of law, is not entitled to expungement." (Emphasis added.) In making this determination, the circuit court relied upon West Virginia Code § 61-11-26(c)(5), which provides, in pertinent part:

Limitations on eligibility for expungement. - A person is not eligible for expungement . . . for convictions of the following offenses: . . . (5) Any violation of . . . [the battery statute] in which the victim was a spouse, a person with whom the person seeking expungement had a child in common, or with whom the person seeking expungement ever cohabited prior to the offense[.]

(Emphasis added.) The circuit court incorrectly identified petitioner's sister, "[with] whom he had previously cohabited," as the victim of his battery conviction. The State concedes that "[t]he record below reveals that . . . [p]etitioner was convicted of one count of battery involving the [bar's] bouncer."

Even without the State's concession, based...