In re R.R.

57 A.3d 134

2012 PA Super 239

In re R.R. Appeal of R.R. In re H.L. Appeal of H.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 1, 2012.

Filed Oct. 29, 2012.

Riya S. Shah, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Michael W. Streily, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, participating party.

BEFORE: BENDER, J., BOWES, J. and DONOHUE, J.

OPINION BY BENDER, J.

In this consolidated matter,¹ R.R. and H.L. (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the orders issued by the juvenile section of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that denied both R.R.'s and H.L.'s petitions to expunge their juvenile records. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.²

We begin by setting forth the juvenile court's statement of the facts and the procedural history relating to H.L.'s case:

H.L. was born [i]n September [of] 1992; he is 19 1/2 years old. In August of 2005, H.L. was charged with sexual offenses in two delinquency petitions. At Caselog Number T139326, H.L. was charged with Rape, Sexual Assault and Indecent Assault; at Caselog Number T138075 H.L. was charged with Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (4 counts), Sexual Assault (2 counts), and Indecent Assault (4 counts). On October 24, 2005, pursuant to [ ] plea agreements H.L. admitted to one count of Indecent Assault at each of the petitions and the remaining charges were withdrawn by the attorney for the Commonwealth. I found that H.L. was a delinquent child in need of treatment, supervision and rehabilitation and deferred disposition with permission to place him in sex offender treatment at Auberle or Harborcreek Youth Services. H.L. was subsequently placed at Harborcreek Youth Services. At the time of the adjudication and disposition, H.L. was 13 years old.

On August 23, 2005, at the approximate time that the delinquency petitions were filed, Children Youth and Family Services (CYF) filed a petition for dependency. The dependency petition alleged that H.L. was dependent because his sisters were the victims of the sexual offenses to which he admitted and H.L.'s parents and the agency felt that it was inappropriate for him to return home. On October 24, 2005, I also adjudicated H.L. dependent. H.L. completed sex offender treatment at Harborcreek Youth Services on March 19, 2007 and was placed at Auberle Group Home. On December 10, 2007, H.L. was placed on probation, but remained in placement at Auberle through CYF. On August 18, 2008, H.L. was released from probation and his delinquency case was closed. H.L. continued to remain under that supervision of CYF and in placement.

Until the time of the close of H.L.'s delinquency case, I held joint placement and permanency review hearings every ninety days. When H.L. reached the age of 18, he agreed to remain under the supervision of Children Youth and Families (CYF) and the court. He is now 19 years old and is residing at Wyotech Vocational School in Blairsville, where he receives automotive training. He received financial assistance and other supports from CYF. His case is reviewed every 90 days by Hearing Officer James Alter. Since his delinquency case was closed in August of 2008, H.L. has not been arrested, adjudicated delinquent, or convicted of a crime.

On November 2, 2011, H.L. filed a Petition for Expungement of his juvenile delinquency records. A hearing on the petition to expungement [sic] was held on January 23, 2012. On January 30, 2012, I entered an order denying the request to expunge the juvenile record, as the District Attorney did not consent to the expungement of the record.

On February 27, 2012, [H.L.] filed a Notice of Appeal of the January 30, 2012 order denying expungement of his juvenile delinquency record. Appellant identified this case as a Children's Fast Track case and filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained with the Notice of Appeal.

Juvenile Court Opinion (J.C.O. re H.L.), 4/17/12, at 1–2 (footnote omitted).

Next, we set forth the juvenile court's factual recitation and procedural history concerning R.R.'s case:

R.R. was born [i]n March [of] 1991; he is 21 years old. R.R. was adjudicated dependent in 2003. In 2003, R.R. was charged in a juvenile petition at Caselog Number T127654 with Rape, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, Aggravated Indecent Assault and Statutory Sexual Assault. On June 24, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, R.R. admitted to one count of Aggravated Indecent Assault and entered treatment through Juvenile Probation. R.R. remained under the supervision of Juvenile Probation and the court until his case through juvenile probation was closed on February 1, 2011. Until the time of the close of his delinquency case, I held joint placement and permanency review hearings every ninety days. After R.R.'s delinquency case was closed, R.R., who was then 19 years old, agreed to remain under the supervision of Children Youth and Families (CYF) and the court. I continued to review his case every 90 days, until his case was closed on November 29, 2011.

On October 20, 2011, R.R. filed a Petition for Expungement of his juvenile delinquency records. A hearing on the petition to expungement [sic] was scheduled for November 29, 2011[,] to coincide with his dependency permanency hearing. After a hearing in open court, I entered an order closing R.R.'s dependency case. I also entered an order denying the request to expunge the juvenile record at Caselog Number T127654, as the District Attorney did not consent to the expungement of this record.

On December 27, 2011, [R.R.] filed a Notice of Appeal of the November 29, 2011 order denying expungement of his juvenile delinquency record at Caselog Number T127654. Appellant identified this case as a Children's Fast Track case and filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained with the Notice of Appeal.

Juvenile Court Opinion (J.C.O. re R.R.), 4/17/12, 1–2 (footnotes omitted).

The juvenile court's opinions in both cases explain that because 18 Pa.C.S. § 9123(a)(4), which is the applicable section of the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”), requires the consent of the Commonwealth to grant expungement, it is compelled to deny both Appellants' petitions. However, the court acknowledges that if the Commonwealth's consents were not required, it would have granted both petitions because it believed that expungement would serve the interests of the public and the juvenile.

In this appeal, Appellants assert the following two overarching arguments for our review:

I. Section 9123(a)(4) of the [CHRIA] is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the extent it permits the denial of expungement based solely upon the Commonwealth's refusal to consent, and where no reason or basis for the refusal to consent is either offered or required.

II. Allowing the prosecutor to unilaterally block a petition for expungement when all other statutory criteria are met contravenes the purposes of Pennsylvania's juvenile act.

Appellants' brief at 12, 23.

Appellants sought expungement of their juvenile records pursuant to section 9123(a)(4) of CHRIA, which provides that:

(a) Expungement of juvenile records.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9105 (relating to other criminal justice information) and except upon cause shown, expungement of records of juvenile delinquency cases wherever kept or retained shall occur after 30 days' notice to the district attorney, whenever the court upon its motion or upon the motion of a child or the parents or guardian finds:

....

(4) the individual is 18 years of age or older, the attorney for the Commonwealth consents to the expungement and a court orders the expungement after giving consideration to the following factors:

(i) the type of offense;

(ii) the individual's age, history of employment, criminal activity and drug or alcohol problems;

(iii) adverse consequences that the individual may suffer if the records are not expunged; and

(iv) whether retention of the record is required for purposes of protection of the public safety.

18 Pa.C.S. § 9123(a)(4) (emphasis added).

Appellants first claim that their due process rights were violated when their expungement requests were denied despite their having satisfactorily completed the requirements imposed by the juvenile justice system, i.e., they completed all treatment and conditions. Specifically, Appellants argue that this case is essentially one involving the interpretation and application of section 9123(a)(4), taking into consideration the intention of the General Assembly and the remedial nature of CHRIA. Moreover, Appellants emphasize that expungements are questions of due process and that the hearing held on the matter at issue must be “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Appellant's brief at 15 (quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975)). Appellants also contend that the statute is stripped of meaning if the Commonwealth is allowed to unilaterally withhold consent without showing cause why expungement should not be granted. See Appellants' brief at 16. ³

Additionally, Appellants rely on Juvenile Court Rule 170(E) that was promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and provides that:

E. Hearing. Unless the attorney for the Commonwealth consents to expunging the records, the court shall schedule and conduct a hearing, and thereafter grant or deny the motion.”

Based upon this rule, Appellants contend that when the Commonwealth does not consent, the parties are to present argument directed at the expungement issue at a hearing. Thereafter, the court must consider the factors listed in section 9123(a)(4)(i)-(iv) and make a final decision whether to grant or deny the expungement petition.

Appellants next contend that “an unfettered, unreviewable prosecutorial veto of a petition for expungement is invalid because it upsets the balance between the coordinate branches of government[,]” Appellants' brief at 22, under the separation of powers doctrine. Essentially, Appellants argue that prosecutors,...