I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 1 2 1 7 - S CT REBEC CA HENTZ a

/ k / a EM I LY R EBECC

A H EN TZ
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 18/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA M E S M C C L U R E , III C O U R T F R O M W H IC H A P P E A L E D : T A L L A H A T C H IE C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: TOM M Y W AY NE D EFER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : LI SA L. BLO UN T NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s C our ti s pr es ent ed w i th the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue: w hethera convi ct ed f el on i s ent i t l ed to a n e x p u n g e m e n t o f h e r c o n v ictio n a fte r re c e iv in g a n e x e c u tiv e p a rd o n . B e c a u se th e re is
no st atutory au tho ri ty in M i ssi ssi pp i forthe co urt s t o o rderan ex pu ng em en tun der these
c irc u m sta n c e s, w e a ffirm th e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e re q u e st fo r e x p u n g e m e n t in t oday’ s cas e.

### Po lk v. State , __ So. 3d __, 2014 WL 5035942 (Mi ss . Oct
. 9, 2014), a c as e in whi ch 1 

### the man date h as no t issued , addresses the same issu e as is presented intod ay’s case. 2 FACTS ¶2. O n M ar ch 10, 2000, the T al l ahat chi e C ounty G r and J ury i ndi ct ed R ebec ca H ent z f or
o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c y to m a n u fa c tu re m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d tw o c o u n ts o f a ttem p t to
m anuf actur e met hamphet ami ne. O n Sept ember25, 2000, H ent z pl eade d gui l ty t o one count of att empt t o m anuf

actur e met hamphet ami ne. T he C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJudi ci al D i s tr i ct of T al l ahat chi e C ount y sent ence d H ent z t o t hi r ty year s , s us pended, uns upervi s ed pr obat i on,
a n d a $ 5 ,0 0 0 fin e . T h e trial c o u rt re m a n d e d to th e fil e the o th e r co u n ts in H e n tz’ s in d ictm e n t. ¶3. O n J anuary 10, 2012, G overnor H al ey B arbour gr ant ed H ent z a “f ul l , compl et e, and uncondi t i onal par don” f orthe att empt - t o- m anuf actur e- m ethamphet ami ne convi ct i on. L at er i n 2012, on O c t ob e r2, H e nt z f i l e d a M ot i on t o Exp un ge Rec or d, c l a i mi ng tha tthe r e c or ds of herconvi ct i on s houl d be expunged bec aus e she had re cei ved a par don. O n M ay 20, 2013, H ent z f i l ed an A m ended M ot i on t o Expunge Recor d, w hi ch i ncl uded addi t i onal s uppor tf or t he cont e nt i on tha tthe r e c or ds of he rc on vi c t i on s ho ul d b e e xp un ge d. A f t e rhe a r i ng or al
a rg u m e n t fro m H e n tz’ s c o u n se l, th e trial c o u rt d e n ied h e r m o tio n . H e n tz th e n tim e ly
a p p e a led to th is C o u rt. A N A L Y S IS ¶4. H ent z r ai s es one i s s ue on appea l : w hether a convi ct ed f el on m ay have hercr i m i nal
r ecor d expunged a f

t err ece i vi ng an exe cut i ve par don. 1 ¶5. E xpungement i s s t atut ory i n natur e, a nd the M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e has “author i zed expungementof

c r i m i nal of

f enderr ecor ds i n l i m i t ed ca s es . . . . ” Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 564 So.

### Hentz’ s convi ction – atte mpt to m anuf ac ture m etham

phet am ineunder

Mis si ss ippi 2 

### C o d e S ection97-1 -7 – is not on e of the specific felonies listed in Sectio n 99 -19 -71
. See Miss. C od e Ann. § 97 -1-7 (Rev . 20 14 ). 3 2 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). A s a n e x a m p le, M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -7 1 p e rm its
cr i m i nal d efendant s t o appl y f orexpungementi n a numberof ci r cumst ance s : ( 1) per s ons convi ct ed of

a mi s demeanoras a f

i r s tof f ender ; ( 2) pe r s ons c onvi ct ed of c ert ai n f el oni es as a f i r s tof f ender ; (3) and per s ons i n “any c as e i n w hi ch an a rr es tw as m ade, the per s on

2
arr es t ed w as r el eas ed and the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed orthe char ges w er e dr opped orther e w as no di s pos i t i on of

s uch ca s e. ” See al

s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 15- 59 ( R ev. 2007) ( expungment of m i s demeanorchar ges ) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99-15- 57( 2) ( R ev. 2007) ( “U pon pet i t i on ther ef or , the courts hal l expunge the r ecor d of any ca s e i n w hi ch an arr estw as m ade, t he p erso n arrested w as re lease d an d th e ca se w as d ism issed or th e c h arg es w ere d rop p ed o r th ere
w as no di s pos i t i on of

s uch ca s e. ”) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99-23- 23 ( R ev. 2007) ( expungement
u p o n c o m p le tio n o f d ru g c o u rt p ro g ra m ). ¶6
. H en tz co n ce d es th at th ere is n o s ta tu to ry p ro v isi o n for e x p u n g em en t i n ca ses o f a par don. R atherthan cl ai m i ng s he i s s t atut or i l y ent i t l ed t o have he rcr i m i nal r ecor d expunged, H en tz claim s tha t th e n ature o f a p ard o n it self sho u ld p erm itthe e x p u n g em en t. In su p p o rt of this propo si t i on , H entz quo t es Jo n es v. B o a rdo f R egis trars , 5 6 M iss. 7 6 6 (18 7 9 ). In Jones , a convi ct ed f

e l on r e c e i ve d a pr e s i de nt i a l pa r do n f orf e de r al embezzl ementchar ges and
s u b s e q u e n tly w a s d e n ie d v o te r r e g is tr a tio n . I d . a t 7 6 6
. F in d in g th a t Jo n e s m ig h t re g iste r to vot e af t ert he par don, thi s C our ts t at ed: If grant ed aft er con vict i on , [ the p ardon] rem ov es the p enalt i es and d i sabi l i t i es, and r es t or es hi m [ the convi ct ] to al l h i s ci vi l r i ght s ; i tm akes hi m , as i tw er e,

### 4

a new m an, and gi ves hi m a new cr edi tand capaci ty. . . . A par don i s an ac t o f g ra c e b y w h ich a n o ff e n d e r is re lea se d fro m th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f h is of f ens e, s o f

aras s uch r el eas e i s pr act i cabl e and w i thi n t he con t rol of the p a r d o n i n g p o we r , o ro f

o f f i c e r s u n d e ri t s d i r e c t i o n . I n c o n t e mp l a t i o n o f l a w, it so fa r b lo ts o u t th e o ffe n c e , tha t af ter w a rd s it c a n n o t b e im p u ted to h im to pr eventthe as s ert i on of hi s l egal r i ght s . A par don of tr eas on orf

el ony, even af t eran att ai nder , s o f

arcl ear s the party f

r om the i nf

amy, and al l other c o n se q u e n c e s th e re o f, th a t h e m a y h a v e a n a c tio n a g a in st a n y w h o sh a ll a ft e rw a rd s c a ll h im tr a ito r o r f e lo n ; f o r t h e p a rd o n m a k e s h im , a s it w e re , a new m an. I d . at768 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed)
. A l though Jones d iscu sses the a ft ere ff e c ts o f p a rd o n , it d o e s n o t s p e c if ic a lly a d d re s s e x p u n g e m e n t. See id . ¶7. H entz al so ci t es E x par te Cr is ler , 159 M i s s . 247, 132 So. 103 ( 1931) , i n supp ortof hercont enti on tha tthe natur e of a par don s houl d perm i tthe tr i al courtt o expunge he r
cr i m i nal r ecor d. W hi l e Crisler does s t at e thata “f ul l pa r don a bs ol ves the party f r om a l l the l egal cons equenc es of

hi s cr i m e and hi s convi ct i on, di r ectan d col l at er al ; i ncl udi ng the puni s hm ent , w hethe rof i m pr i s onm entpecuni ary penal ty, orw hat everel s e the l aw has p ro v id e d ;” th e o p in io n e x p re s s ly li m its it s e lf to c a s e s o f a tto rn e y d is b a rm e n t. I d . at103- 04 (q u o tin g 8 B ish o p ’s C rim in a l L a w § 9 1 6 ) (“ W h a t w e h e re h o ld , an d a ll th a t w e d o h o ld , is thata f ul l par don abs ol ves an att orney atl aw f r om al l the cons equenc es of an or derof d is b a rm e n t . . . .” ). ¶ 8
. Jones , 56 M i s s . 766, and Cr is ler , 159 M i s s . 247, both ci t e Ex par te G ar land , 71 U . S. 333, 18 L
. E d. 3 66 (1866) , i n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tal s o concl uded that p a rd o n “ re lea se s th e p u n ish m e n t an d b lo ts o u t th e e x iste n c e o f g u ilt .” T h e lan g u a g e in G ar land , h o w e v e r, h a s s in c e b e e n h e ld to b e d icta ; an d m o re re c e n t c a s e la w h o ld s th a t a p a rd o n d o e s n o t “b lo t o u t” th e e x iste n c e o f g u ilt :

### 5

B utm odern cas e l aw em phas i zes . . . t hatt hi s hi s t or i cal l anguage w as di ct a and is in c o n s is te n t w ith c u rr e n t la w . See In re N o rth , 6 2 F . 3 d 1 4 3 4 , 1 4 3 7 ( D. C. C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A p a rd o n in n o w a y re v e rse s th e leg a l co n c lu sio n o f th e c o u rt; it “does not bl otoutgui l torexpunge a j udgm entof convi ct i on. ” N

o rth , 62 F. 3 d a t 1 4 3 7 ; s ee al

s o N i xon v. U nited States , 506 U . S. 224, 232, 113 S. C t . 732, 122 L
. E d. 1 ( 1993) ( “a pa r don i s i n no s ens e an ove r turni ng of a j udgm entof c o n v ictio n b y so m e o th e r trib u n a l”) ; B urdick v. U nited States , 236 U
. S
. 79, 94, 35 S. C t . 267, 5 9 L . E d. 476 ( 1915) ( a par don “ca rr i es an i m put at i on of g u ilt ” ). T h e e ffe c t o f a p a rd o n is n o t t o p ro h ib it all cons equenc es o f a par doned convi ct i on, butr athert o pr ecl ude f utur e p u n ish m e n t f

orthe c o n v ic tio n . See N

i xon , 5 0 6 U .S . a t 2 3 2 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 73 2 ; B jerkan v. U

nited States , 5 2 9 F . 2 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 7 -28 (7th C ir
. 1 9 7 5 ). H irsch b erg v. Co m m o dit y F u ture s T

ra ding Co m m ’n , 414 F. 3d 6 79 , 6 82 (7th C i r . 2005) (em p h asis in o ri g inal); see al s o Fletcherv. G r aham , 192 S. W . 3d 350 ( “[ W ] hi l e a pa r don
w i l l for ecl ose pu nis hm ent of the o ff ense i t sel f, i tdo es not er ase the factthat th e off ense
o c c u rr e d , a n d th a t f

a c t m a y la te r b e u s e d to p a rd o n e e ’s d e tr im e n t.” ). ¶9
. Fur t he r , r e c e ntc a s e l a w s up po r t s the cont ent i on t hat , abs ents t atut or y aut hor i t y, expungementi s notperm i t t ed af t era par don. I n E u b a n ks v . S ta te , 5 3 S o . 3 d 8 4 6 (M iss . C t. A pp. 2011) , a def

endantw i th a dr i vi ng- under
- the- i nf l uence convi ct i on r eques t ed thatt he
c o u rt c o n sid e r a n “ e q u itab le e x p u n g e m e n t” in c a se s w h e re e x p u n g e m e n t w a s n o t sta tu to rily pr ovi ded. T he C our tof A ppeals r ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , f i ndi ng thattr i al court s had the p o w er to e x p u n g e a felon y co n v ict ion pu rsua n t to a gu il ty plea on ly u n d er c ertain statutory
c o n d itio n s . I

d . a t 8 4 8
. See al

s o Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 876 So. 2d 1056, 1059 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) ( r ecogni zi ng thatci r cui tc our t s l ack i nher entpow ert o or dere xpungementof cr i m i nal
rec o rds).

### See fn. 1 sup ra . 3 

### The di ss ent

argues that Mi ss is sippi CodeSec tion 99- 15-57( 2) provide s s tatut ory 4 

### auth orityfor expung ement inthis case, b ecause it p rov ides for expung ement when“an arrest was ma de, theper son arr es te d was re le as ed and thecas e was dismis se d or thecharge s we re droppe d or ther e wa s no di spos ition of suc h cas e. ” We point out that none of thosesi tuati ons apply. Thec as e wasnot

dis mi ss ed, thecharge s we renot dropped, and the c as e wa s di spos ed of vi a He ntz ’s convi ction. Inde ed, each of thes e s it uations ar e a

ppli ca ble on lyto cases in whic h no convi ction e xis ts , and thus ar e c le arly inappl ic abl e he re . See U.S . C on st. Art. II § 2, cl. 1 ; Fletcher v. Graham , 192 S. W.3d 350 ( Ky. 2006)
. 5 

### 6 ¶10. A l t hough thi s C our t has not di r ect l y addr es s ed the i s s ue pr es ent ed i n t oday’ s cas e, 3 the M i s s i s s i ppi A t t orney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce ha s add r es s ed thi s exac ti s s ue. S e e Sm ith , 2012 O p. A t t ’ y G en. 337, 2012 W L 3611766 ( M i s s . A
. G
. A ug. 10, 2012)
. T he A t t orney G ener al
w as pr es ent ed w i th t he f ol l ow i ng ques t i on: “D oes r ece i vi ng a par don f r om the G overnor al l ow the def

endantt o then r eques tthatthe r ecor d of the convi ct i on, w hich i ncludes t he
arr es t , i ndi ctm ent , convi ct i on, and sent ence be expunged? ” I d. T he opi ni on r ecogni zes t hat “t here i s no st atutory o r const i tuti on al authori ty p rovi ding forthe ex pu ng em ent of an o ff ense
a s a re s u lt o f a p a rd o n b y th e G o v e rn o r.” Id
. T he di s s entemphasi zes thatA r t i cl e 5, Sect i on 4 124 of the C ons t i tut i on of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi empow er s the G overnort o gr antr epr i eves and par dons , and thatt o gi ve thats ect i on ef f ect , an expunge m entm us tgo partand par cel
w i th the par don. H ow ever , A r t i cl e 5, Sect i on 124, unl i ke the U
. S. cons t i tut i on and thatof
so m e o th e r sta tes , lim its the G o v e rn o r’s p a rd o n p o w e r b y m a n d a tin g tha t “n o p a rd o n sh a ll 5 be gr ant ed bef

or e convi ct i on. ” M i s s . Const
. a r t . 5, § 124. T hus , the cons t i tut i on s peci f i es t hat no par don m ay be gr ant ed unt i l a r ecor d of the cr i m e i s cr eat ed via convi ct i on. T he L egi s l atur e has notc hos en t o ne gat e thi s r ecor d r equi r ed by the cons t i tut i on by pr ovi di ng f or

### 7

exp un gem ent i n the case of a pardone d off ense, indi cat i ng thatthe his t ory b ehind t he o ff ense
s h o u ld b e re ta in e d u n le s s o r u n til th e L e g is la tu re p ro v id e s o th e rw is e . ¶11. B eca us e ther e i s no s t atut ory bas i s i n M i s s i s s i ppi f oran expunge m entaf

t era cr i m i nal def endantr ece i ves an exe cut i ve par don, the tr i al courti n t oday’ s cas e di d noter ri n denyi ng H ent z’ s m ot i on t o e xpunge herc r i m i nal r ecor d. A s s uch, w e af f i r m the j udgm entof

the tr i al
c o u rt . CO NC L US I ON ¶12. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above, w e af f i r m the j udgm entof

the C i r cui tCourtof

t he F ir s t J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t o f T a lla h a tc h ie C o u n ty . ¶ 1 3
. AF F I RM ED . W ALLER, C. J . , AND PI ERCE, J . , CONCUR. RAN DO LPH, P. J . , S PECI ALLY CO NCU RS W I TH SEP AR AT E W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., CH AN DL E R A ND CO L E M AN , J J . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . RA ND OL P H, P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶ 1 4
. J u s t i c e Ki n g ’ s o p i n i o n i s n o to n l y we l l
- s t a t e d a n d mo s tp e r s u a s i v e , i tr e a c h e s th e s a me concl us i on agr eed t o by a maj or i ty of the mem ber s of

thi s C our t , w i th al l ni ne j ust i ces p a rt ic ip a tin g , in a p ri o r c a s e . See P ol k v. State of

Mis s is s i ppi , 2013- C A
- 00701- SC T ( O ct . 9, 2 0 1 4 ) ( r eh’

g deni ed D ec. 4, 2014)
. I n P o lk , f i ve j us t i ces agr eed thatno author i ty exi s t s under this C o u rt ’s ca selaw o r ou r st ate’s statutes allow ing for the ex p u n g em en t of th e re co rd o f a
cr i m i nal co nvi ct i on f

orw hi ch a pa r don w as gr ant ed. I n t oday’ s cas e, the ei ghtj us t i ces p a rt ic ip a tin g a re d e a d lo c k e d o n th e s a m e is s u e .

### 8

¶15. T hus , I am c ons tr ai ned t o s peci al l y concur and expr es s m y vi ew that the i s s uance of a j udgm ento f

af f i r m ance i s the appr opr i at e di s pos i t i on of the ca s e s ub j udi ce . T oday, f our j us t i ces agr ee t o af

f i r m the tr i al court ’ s j udgm ent , and f ourj us t i ces di s agr ee. T hus , t he ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt s h o u ld b e a ff ir m e d
. See R ock ett

Steel W orks v. McIntyr e , 15 So. 2 d 6 2 4 (M is s . 1 9 4 3 ) ( “ tr ia l c o u rt m u s t b e , a n d is , a ff ir m e d ” ). ¶16. T hi s di s pos i t i on w as f i r s t art i cul at ed by C hi ef J us t i ce M ar s hal l f or the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt. C h ief

Ju stic e M a rsh a ll w ro te: N o a tte m p t w ill b e m a d e to a n a ly z e [th e p a r tie s ’ a rg u m e n ts a n d c ite d c a s e s ], o r t o d ec ide o n their ap p li ca ti o n to the ca se b efo re u s, b ec au se th e Ju d g es a re di vi ded r es pect i ng i t . C ons equent l y, the pr i ncipl es of l aw w hi ch have been ar gued ca nnotbe s ett l ed; butthe j udgm enti s af f i r m ed, the courtbe i ng di vi ded in o p in io n u p o n it. E tting v. B ank of

U nited States , 2 4 U . S
. 5 9 , 7 8 , 1 1 W h ea t. 5 9 , 6 L . E d . 4 1 9 (18 2 6 ). In D urant v. E s s ex Co. , 74 U
. S. 107, 7 W al l
. 107, 19 L . Ed. 154 ( 1868) , addr es s i ng the ef f ect
o f a ffirm a n c e b y a d iv id e d c o u rt, Ju stic e F ield w ro te th a t: T h e re is n o th in g in th e fa c t th a t th e ju d g e s o f th is c o u rt w e re d iv id e d in opi ni on upon the ques t i on w hetherthe dec r ee s houl d be r ever s ed ornot , and, ther ef or e, or der ed an af

fi rm ance of the dec r ee of the courtbel ow . T he j udgm entof

af f i r m ance w as the j udgm entof the ent i r e court . T he di vi s i on of opi ni on betw een the j udges w as t he r eas on f orthe entry of

thatj udgm ent ; but the re aso n is no p art of the jud g m en t i tsel f. D ur ant , 74 U . S
. at110
. I f divi si on of op i nion i s the reas on forthe judgm ent, w hat purpose do the conf

l i ct i ng opi ni ons s erve? The pr i nci pl es of l aw ar gued cannotbe s ett l ed by ei ght evenl y di vi ded j ust i ces , and the conf l i ct i ng opi ni ons pr ovi de no author i ty f ort he d e te rm in a tio n o f o th e r c a s e s . ¶ 1 7 . T h e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t:

### 9

i ti s obvi ous thatthatw hi ch has been done m us tst and unl es s re ver s ed by the af f i r m at i ve ac t i on of

a m aj or i ty. I tha s ther ef or e bee n the i nvari abl e pract i ce to a ff ir m , w i t hout opi ni on , any j udgm entordecr ee w hi ch i s notdeci ded t o be err oneous by a maj or i ty of the courts i t t i ng i n the ca us e. . . . [ A ] n af f i r m ance by an equal l y di vi ded courti s . . . a conc l us i ve det erm i nat i on and adj udi cat i on of the mat t eradj udged; but the pr i nci pl es of l aw i nvol ved nothavi ng been agr eed upon by a m aj or i ty of t he cour tsi t t i ng pre vent s t he ca s e f r om becomi ng an authori t y forthe det erm i nat i on of othercas es , ei theri n thi s ori n i nf er i or cou rt s. Hert zv. W oodm an , 21 8 U. S. 20 5, 21 2- 14 , 30 S. Ct
. 62 1, 62 2- 23 , 54 L. Ed. 10 01 ( 19 10) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶1 8. T hus , a s the j ud gmen to f the Ci r c ui tCourto f

T al l ahat chi e C ount y has not been d ec ided to b e e rro n e o u s b y a m ajority o f th e jus ti ce s sitti n g in this ca se, w e sh o u ld affirm
w i thoutopi ni on. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶19
. T he breadth of M i ssi ssi pp i com m on l aw regar ding t he eff ectof a gub ernat ori al par don p e r s u a d e s me t h a tHe n t z i s e n t i t l e d t o a n e x p u n g e me n to f h e rc r i mi n a l r e c o r d
. Be c a u s e my lea rn e d c o llea g u e s in th e p lu ra lity h a v e re a c h e d a c o n tra ry c o n c lu sio n , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶20. H ent z r ece i ved the f ol l ow i ng par don on J anuary 10, 2012: NOW , THE RE F ORE , I , H al ey B arbour , G overnorof the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , underand by vi r tue of t he author i ty ves t ed i n m e by the C ons t i tut i on an d L aw s of thi s St at e, do her eby gr antt o R ebec ca H ent z née a/k/ a R ebec ca W hat l ey a/k/ a R e be c c a H e nt z a f ul l , compl et e and unc ondi t i onal p a rd o n fo r t h e c ri m e a n d c o n v ic tio n n a m e d h e re in ; a n d h e n c e fo rt h , s hal lbe abs olved f

r om al ll egal

cons equenc es of

this cr i m e and conv i ct i on. ( E m phas i s added. ) T hi s C our t ’ s l ongs t andi ng j ur i s prudence re gar di ng t he s cope of exec ut i ve p a rd o n s tra c k s th a t o f th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt: T he doctr i ne of

the author i t i es i s , t hat“a par don re ache s bot h t he puni s hm ent pr es cr i bed f

orthe of f ence , and the gui l tof

the of f ender , ” and that“i tr el eas es

### 10

the puni s hm entand bl ot s outof exis t ence t he gui l t , s o that , i n the eye of the law th e o ffe n d e r is a s in n o c e n t as if h e h adnever co m m i t t ed the of f ense . ” “ If gr ant ed af

t erconvi ct i on, i tre m oves the pena l t i es and di s abi l i t i es , and r es t or es hi m [ t he con vict ] t o al l hi s ci vi l r i ght s ; i tm akes hi m , as i tw er e, a new m an, and gi ves hi m a new cr edi tand capaci ty. ” Ex par te G ar land , [ 71 U
. S. 333, 18 L . E d . 3 6 6 ,] 4 W a ll. 3 3 3 , 3 8 0 [(1 8 6 6 )]; U n ited S tates v. P adel

ford , [ 76 U . S. 5 3 1 , 1 9 L . E d . 7 8 8 ,] 9 W a ll. 5 3 1 [(1 8 6 9 )]; U n itedS ta tes v. K

lein , [ 80 U . S. 1 2 8 , 2 0 L . E d . 5 1 9 ,] 1 3 W a ll. 1 2 8 [(1 8 7 1 )]; Car lis le v. U nited States , [ 83 U . S. 1 4 7 , 2 1 L . E d
. 4 2 6 , ] 1 6 W all
. 1 4 7 [( 1 8 7 2 )] ; K n ote v. U

nited States , 95 U . S. 149[ , 5 O t t o 149, 24 L . E d. 442 ( 1877) ]
. In the cas e l as tci t ed, i ti s sai d t hat“a par don i s an ac tof

gr ace by w hi ch an of f enderi s r el eas ed f

r om the cons equenc es of

hi s of f ence , s o f aras s uch r el eas e i s pr act i cabl e and w i thi n the co n tr o l of th e p ard o n ing p o w er, or o f o fficers u n d er it s d ir ec ti o n . ” “ In co n tem p lat ion o f l aw , itso far b lo ts o u t th e o ff e n c e . . . .” J o n e s v . B d

. o f R e g is tra rs o

f A lco rn Co u n ty , 56 M i s s . 766, 768, 31 A m . R ep. 385 ( 1879) ( emphasi s added)
. L i kew i s e, i n E x P ar te Cr is ler , t h i s Co u r tma i n t a i n e d th e ru l e f r o m Jones th a t: A par don by the governori s an ac tof s over ei gn g race, pr ocee di ng f r om the s a me s ou r c e whi c h make s c on vi c t i on o f c r i me a g r ou ndo f

e xc l us i on f

r om s uf f r age. T he actof abs ol ut i on i s of as hi gh der i vat i on and cha r act eras the ac t o f p ro sc rip tio n . T h e p a rd o n m u st b e h e ld to r e h a b ili tate th e p e rso n in a ll h is rig h ts a s a c iti z e n , an d to d e n y to a n y o ffic e r o f th e S tate th e rig h t to im p u te to h im th e fa c t o f h is c o n v ic tio n . A f t erthe par don, he is as if h e w as neve r convi ct ed. I

ts hal lneve rbe s ai d of hi m thathe w as convi ct ed. The par don obl i t er at es the f

act of convi ct i on, and m akes i tas i f i tneve rw as . E x P ar te Cr is ler , 159 M i s s . 247, 250, 132 So. 103 ( 1931) ( quot i ng Jones , 56 M i s s . at768) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶21. T he pl ur al i ty att empt s t o di s t i ngui s h Cr is ler : “ th e o p in io n e x p re s s ly lim its itse lf to
cas es of a t t orney di s barm ent . ” Cr is ler , deci ded i n 1931, di d i nvol ve an a t t orney, di s barr ed f r om the pr act i ce of

l aw f ol l ow i ng a c onvi ct i on of embezzl ement , w ho s oughtr ever s al of t he
o rd e r o f d is b a rm e n t. Cr is ler , 159 M i s s . a t249. Li kew i s e i s true, a s the pl ur al i ty not es , t hat thi s C our thel d that“a f ul l par don absol ves an at t orney atl aw f r om al l the cons equenc es of

### 11

an or derof

di s barm ent. . . a s pa r tof the puni s hm entf

orthe comm i s s i on of

a cr i m e. ” I

d. at 2 5 1 . B u t Cr is lerr el i ed on a br oaderrul e art i cul at ed by thi s C our ti n the 1878 Jo n es cas e,
w hi ch i nvol ved r es t or at i on of s uf f r age t o a c onvi ct ed per s on f ol l ow i ng a pr es i dent i al par don. Jones , 56 M i s s . at771. T he Jones C our tci t ed pr ece den t s i n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt c o n te m p late d th e e x ten t o f th e p re sid e n tial p a rd o n s o ffe re d b y P re sid e n ts L i ncol n and J ohns on t o per s ons i nvol ved i n r ebel l i on agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es dur i ng t he 1860s
. I n U

. S. v. P adel

ford , fo r i n s ta n c e , C h ie f J u s tic e S a lm o n P . C h a s e o p in e d th a t, “ [i]n the c ase o f G ar land , thi s c our the l d the ef f ectof a pa r don t o be s uch ‘ thati n the eye of t he law th e o ffe n d e r is a s in n o c e n t as i f he ha d n e v e rc omm i t t e d the of f e nc e’
. . . . ” U

. S. v. P adel ford , 76 U . S. 531, 543, 19 L
. E d 788, 9 W al l
. 531 ( 1869) ( quot i ng G ar land , 4 W a ll.
a t 3 8 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 2 2
. In sp ite o f it s b ro a d , sw e e p in g lan g u a g e , the p lu ra lity re c ites th a t “[t]h e lan g u a g e in G ar land , h o w e v e r, h a s s in c e b e e n h e ld to b e d ic ta ; a n d m o re re c e n t ca se law h o ld s th a t a par don does not‘ bl otout ’ the exi s t ence of gui l t. . . . ” ( ci t i ng H

irs c h b e rg v. Co m m o dity F u ture s T

ra ding Co m m ’n , 414 F. 3d 679, 682 ( 7th C i r . 2005) )
. W i t h res pect, an opi ni on fro m th e U n it ed S tat es C o u rtof A p p ea ls for th e S ev en th C ir cu iti s of no m o m en t to th is C ou rt ’s analysi s of the eff ectgiven an execu t i ve p ardon u nd er cont rol l i ng M i ssi ssi pp i case law . B e y o n d th a t, on e o f th e c a se s u p o n w h ich th e S e v e n th C irc u it relie d to su p p o rt its pos i t i on thatthe G ar land l anguage more r ece nt l y ha s be en r ender ed di ct a i s B urdick v. U nited States , 236 U
. S. 79, 94, 3 5 S. C t . 267, 59 L
. E d. 476 ( 1915)
. T her e, Pr es i dent W o o d ro w W ils o n o ff

e re d B u rd ic k a p a rd o n in e x c h a n g e fo r h is te s tim o n y . B urdick , 23 6 U. S.
a t 8 5 . B u rd ic k re fu s e d th e p a rd o n , th e n w a s h e ld in c o n te m p t a n d in c a rc e ra te d
. I d . at87. T he

### 12

ques t i on befor e the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , w hi ch ul t i m at el y or der ed B ur di ck di s c ha r ge d f

r om c us t od y, i nv ol ve d the di s t i nc t i on b e tw e e n l e gi s l a t i ve i mm un i ty a nd a pr es i dent i al par don: T he l att ercarr i es an i m put at i on o f gui l t ; acc ept ance a conf es s i on of i t . T he f or m erhas no s uch i m put at i on or conf es s i on. I ti s t ant amount t o the s i l ence of the w i tnes s . I ti s noncomm i t t al
. I tis the unobtrus i ve ac tof the l aw gi ven pr ot ect i on agai ns ta s i ni s t erus e of hi s t es t i m ony, notl i ke a par don, r equi r i ng h im to c o n fe ss h is g u iltin o rd e r to a v o id a c o n v ictio n o f it. B urdick , 2 3 6 U .S . at 9 5 . B u t B urdicki nvol ved a pr econvi ct i on par don w hi ch B ur di ck
r ef us ed; the ca s e i s s i l entr egar di ng w hethera par don en t i t l es the par donee t o an
e x p u n g e m e n t. ¶23
. T he p l ural i ty’s ci t at i on of expu ng em ent cas es f rom the M i ssi ssi pp i C ou rtof A pp eal s, l i kew i se, is n ot hel pful regardi ng the eff ecto f a gu bernat ori al p ardon o n a co nv i ct ’s request fo r e x p u n g em en t. N eith er E u b a n ks v . S ta te , 5 3 So. 3 d 84 6 ( M i s s . Ct
. App. 2 01 1) , nor Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 876 So. 2d 1056, 1059 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) , addr es s es the ques t i on t hat i s bef or e thi s C our tt oday: w hethera gubernat or i al par don ent i t l es a p ardonee t o an
e x p u n g e m e n t. T h e o p in io n fro m the M iss iss ip p i A tto rn e y G e n e ra l re fe re n c e d b y th e m a jo rity
ans w er s the ques t i on i n the nega t i ve. B uti n the cont extof an adve r s ar i al s ys t em i n w hi ch the A t t orney G ener al i s an i nt er es t ed party i n thi s very cas e, hi s opi ni on, w hi l e i nt er es t i ng, i s f ar f r om di s pos i t i ve. ¶2 4. T he pl ur al i t y f

ur t heropi nes tha t , “ [ e ] xp un ge menti s s t a tut ory i n na tur e, and t he M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e has ‘ author i zed expungementof c r i m i nal of

f enderr ecor ds i n l i m i t ed
ca ses . . . . ’ Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 564 So. 2d 1371, 1372 ( M i s s . 1990)
. ” B utM i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 9 -1 5 -5 2 (2 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ) p ro v id e s th a t, “[u ]po n p e tit io n th e re fo r, th e c o u rt sh a ll

### 13

expunge the r ecor d of any ca s e i n w hi ch an arr es tw as m ade, the per s on arr es t ed w as r el eas ed and the cas e w as di s m i s s ed orthe cha r ges w er e dr opped orther e w as no di s pos i t i on of s uch
cas e. ” S ect i on 99 -15-57(2), cou pled w i th the breadt h o f the comm on l aw l anguage art i cul at ed i n Cr is lerth a t a g u b e r n a to ri a l p a rd o n “ m a k e s [th e fa c t o f c o n v ic tio n ] a s if it n e v e r w a s ,”
m a n d a te s e x p u n g e m e n t. Cr is ler , 159 M i s s . at250. ¶25. A r t i cl e 5, Sect i on 124, of the C ons t i tut i on of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi empow er s t he governor“t o gr antr epr i eves and par dons
. ” Today, the pl ur al i ty di m i ni s hes the ef f ectof gubernat or i al par don s i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hatw hi ch pr evi ous l y w as r egar ded as “an a ctof
s over ei gn g ra ce” now i s r el egat ed t o a mer e pi ece of paperembl azone d w i th the dubi ous phr as e “absol ved fr om al l l egal cons equenc es of thi s cr i m e and c onvi ct i on. ” I , ther ef or e, d is s e n t. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , CH ANDL ER AND COL EM AN, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.