Case Title: Vermont v. F.M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2010-211

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. F.M. (2010-211)
 
2011 VT 100
 
[Filed 07-Sep-2011]
 
ENTRY ORDER
 
2011 VT 100
 
SUPREME COURT
  DOCKET NO. 2010-211
 
JANUARY TERM, 2011
 
State of Vermont
}
APPEALED FROM:
 
}
 
 
}
 
     v.
}
District Court of Vermont, 
 
}
Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
 
}
 
F.M.
}
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Judge: James R. Crucitti
 
In the above-entitled
cause, the Clerk will enter:
 
¶ 1.            
This appeal raises the question of the meaning of expungement within our
judicial system.  Defendant seeks the removal of references to a dismissed
count from the docket entries regarding his case.  We remand the matter
for such removal.
¶ 2.            
In December 2008, defendant was charged with four counts.  In June
2009, under a plea agreement with the State, defendant pled guilty to Count 2,
reckless endangerment; the State dismissed the other three counts; and
defendant received a deferred sentence and the promise that Count 2 would be
dismissed if defendant successfully completed mental health court
proceedings.  In February 2010, the court, upon request, recognized that
defendant had successfully completed mental health court requirements and, per
the plea agreement, dismissed Count 2 and ordered expungement of the record
pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7041(e).  Following this order, however, the
docket sheet for defendant's case still referred to Count 2, labeling it
"expunged" in the list of disputes and referring in the descriptive docket
entries to "disputes 1-4."  
¶ 3.            
The following month, defendant moved to correct the clerical record to
remove all references in the docket entries to the expunged count.  The
court denied the motion "[i]n light of the problems outlined in the emails"
among count clerks, administrators, and information services personnel
describing the complexities involved in deleting docket entries from the
electronic system.  This appeal followed.
¶ 4.            
Defendant contends that the continued reference to the expunged count in
the docket entries violates 13 V.S.A. § 7041(e), which provides that,
following fulfillment of a deferred sentence agreement, the record of the
criminal proceedings shall be expunged.  This expungement order shall
"expunge all records and files related to the arrest, citation, investigation,
charge, adjudication of guilt, criminal proceedings, and probation related to
the deferred sentence."  13 V.S.A. § 7041(e).  
¶ 5.            
Defendant argues that, as described by the statutory language, the
docket entries should no longer reflect a record of Count 2 because he pled
guilty to Count 2 and received a deferred sentence agreement, which he
successfully completed.  Defendant challenges the trial court's refusal to
enforce its expungement order because of the difficulty of compliance, noting
that the docket entries concerning his case continue to refer to "disputes
1-4," rather than "disputes 1, 3-4," a direct violation of the expungement
required by statute.  The State filed a letter with the Court explaining
its decision not to file a brief "given that the sole issue concerns how the
judiciary carries out expungements rather than whether or not the record in
this particular case should be expunged."
¶ 6.            
We agree with defendant that all records of Count 2 should be removed
from the docket sheet concerning his case.  Because defendant fulfilled
his deferred sentence agreement for this count, § 7041(e) requires the true
expungement from records and files of references to it.  Labeling Count 2
"expunged" and continuing to refer to "disputes 1-4" is insufficient.  The
difficulties inherent in deleting docket entries from our current docket entry
systemwhile realdo not justify a violation of the statute on the part of the
judiciary.  
¶ 7.            
References to Count 2 will be removed from the docket entries of
defendant's case as displayed by the computer system.  Defendant's docket
sheet will no longer refer to Count 2 in either the initial list of disputes or
subsequent docket entries.  Court staff is instructed to eliminate from
notes language referring to the expunged count.  Following this
expungement, neither the clerk's office personnel nor the public will have
access to information about Count 2, and defendant's docket sheet will refer
only to Counts 1, 3, and 4.  This manner of expungement within the
judiciary's current docket entry system will satisfy the requirements of §
7041(e).
¶ 8.            
The changes in the docket entries required by this decision must be
implemented by the Court Administrator as they involve actions of staff who
operate and modify the judiciary computer system.  We will remand the case
to the trial court with the understanding that the necessary actions will be
taken under the directive of the Court Administrator.
Reversed
and remanded for actions consistent with this decision.
 
BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Reiber, Chief
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
John A. Dooley, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Denise R. Johnson,
  Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Marilyn S. Skoglund,
  Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. Burgess, Associate
  Justice