Download Report

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0833-13T2
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF D.W. FOR THE EXPUNGEMENT
OF RECORDS.
_________________________________
Argued September 23, 2014 – Decided October 17, 2014
Before Judges Koblitz and Higbee.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
Docket No. 9700670-001/97-05-0925.
Allan Marain, argued the cause for appellant
D.W. (Law Offices of Allan Marain,
attorneys; Mr. Marain, on the brief).
Ian D. Brater, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued
the cause for respondent State of New Jersey
(Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Acting Monmouth
County Prosecutor; Mr. Brater, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In July 2013, D.W. filed a petition seeking expungement of
her criminal convictions for a series of thefts committed from
November 1996 to January 1997.
Judge John T. Mullaney, Jr.
denied her petition, finding D.W. did not qualify for
expungement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2a.
D.W. appealed.
We affirm.
D.W. seeks reversal of the court's decision, arguing that
her series of crimes should be treated as a single crime spree
under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2a.
D.W. was convicted of three counts of
theft by deception, and three counts of credit card theft.
She
stole three credit cards from the same victim, and used them
over a seven-week period making illegal purchases at different
stores on different dates.
Expungement of a conviction for an indictable crime is
governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2a, which allows expungement "[i]n
all cases, except as herein provided, wherein a person has been
convicted of a crime under the laws of this State and who has
not been convicted of any prior or subsequent crime."
Previously N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2a allowed expungement where
there had been no "subsequent conviction."
The Legislature, in
adopting the new language, focused on multiple crimes rather
than multiple convictions, thus making the criteria for
eligibility more restrictive.
In re Ross, 400 N.J. Super. 117
(App. Div. 2008).
In In re R.Z., 429 N.J. Super. 295 (App. Div. 2013), we
reversed the grant of an expungement for a conviction of theft
by deception between August 27, 1995 and December 22, 1995, and
money laundering between September 6, 1995 and December 1, 1995.
In R.Z. the trial court found these acts were part of a single
2
A-0833-13T2
ongoing criminal scheme.
In reversing the expungement order we
found that the purpose of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2a was to offer relief
to one-time offenders, and did not allow for expungement for
separate crimes committed on different dates.
In In re Expungement of the Criminal Records of G.P.B., 436
N.J. Super. 48, 50 (App. Div. 2014), we held "[t]he expungement
of criminal records is available only if authorized by
legislation.
There is no constitutional or common law right to
the expungement of records relating to a criminal conviction."
There, G.P.B. had offered to make campaign contributions to
three separate municipal officials to oppose a municipal
resolution.
The offers were made on two separate dates.
The
trial court granted expungement of the single judgment that
included multiple crimes occurring on two different days.
We
reversed that decision.
The circumstances of G.P.B. and D.W. are very similar,
involving multiple crimes committed on different days as part of
one scheme.
In G.P.B. the crimes took place on two consecutive
days as opposed to the seven weeks in this case.
also analogous to R.Z.
This case is
Here, D.W. stole credit cards and,
according to her plea, used them illegally to purchase goods at
3
A-0833-13T2
different stores on diverse dates.1
We agree with the trial
judge that this was not a single crime.
Affirmed.
1
We are aware that the Supreme Court recently granted
certification in In re Expungement Petition of J.S., 217 N.J.
304 (2014). This case is factually distinguishable from J.S.
4
A-0833-13T2