Case Title: Wright v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 218, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAUREN WRIGHT,1 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 218, 2011 
 
Petitioner Below,  
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
Court Below–Family Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
File Nos. 
0605007413  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
1006014183  
 
Respondent Below, 
§ 
CPI No. 
11-07534 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 22, 2011 
Decided: 
September 13, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief and the motion to affirm filed by the appellee, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In February 2011, the appellant, Lauren Wright, petitioned the 
Family Court for the discretionary expungement of two adult criminal 
charges dismissed by the State, i.e., a 2006 charge for Offensive Touching 
and a 2010 charge for Criminal Contempt.  By order dated April 4, 2011, the 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated May 2, 2011, the Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the 
appellant.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 
 
Family Court summarily denied Wright’s petition for expungement.  This 
appeal followed. 
(2) 
Title 10, section 1025(e) of the Delaware Code governs the 
Family Court’s discretionary authority to expunge police and court records 
in an adult criminal case.2  When considering a petition for expungement 
under section 1025(e), the Family Court is directed to grant relief only if it 
finds “that the continued existence and possible dissemination of 
information relating the arrest of the petitioner causes, or may cause, 
circumstances which constitute a manifest injustice to the petitioner.”3  The 
burden is on the petitioner “to allege specific facts in support of . . . [the] 
allegation of manifest injustice.”4    
(3) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal and 
the Family Court record, the Court concludes that the Family Court did not 
abuse its discretion when summarily denying Wright’s petition for 
expungement.  The record reflects that Wright’s petition for expungement 
failed to specify any facts in support of her allegation of manifest injustice.5  
Although Wright appears to allege facts in her opening brief on appeal, we 
                                          
 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit.  10, § 1205(e) (Supp. 2010). 
3 See tit. 10, § 1205(e)(2) (emphasis added). 
4 Id. 
5 Wright’s petition supported her claim of manifest injustice with the two-word 
conclusion “false allegations.” 
3 
 
decline to consider on appellate review a claim that is based on facts that 
were not presented to the trial court in the first instance.6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                          
 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.