Title: S.K.W. v. Oklahoma
Citation: 2022 OK 39
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 19, 2022

S.K.W. v. Oklahoma Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Plaintiff-appellant, S. K. W. (W.) was convicted of five crimes relating to the manufacturing, trafficking, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance in Blaine and Canadian Counties, Oklahoma in 2001 and 2002. According to W., her arrest stemmed from her two-year addiction (2000-2002) to methamphetamine, which she struggled with after the unexpected death of her mother. Also according to W., while in the Department of Corrections custody, she dried out, got help dealing with her underlying emotional issues, and has been sober for nineteen years. On January 5, 2021, the Oklahoma Governor pardoned W. of all five convictions. Subsequently, she sought expungement of her criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 section 18. The Blaine County District Court granted W.'s expungement request, but the Canadian County District Court denied it. The trial court based its denial on two Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals cases which interpreted the statute to allow one single conviction to be expunged, not multiple convictions. W. appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that because the expungement was based on the Governor's pardon of all five convictions, the plain, unambiguous text of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 section 18 allowed expungement of all of them. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . S.K.W. v. STATE 2022 OK 39 Case Number: 119607 Decided: 04/19/2022 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. S.K.W., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant/Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY Honorable Jack D. McCurdy, II., Trial Judge ¶0 The plaintiff/appellant, S.K.W., was convicted of three drug related crimes in 2001, in Canadian County, Oklahoma, and two drug related crimes in 2002, in Blaine County, Oklahoma. On January 5, 2021, the Governor pardoned W. of all five convictions. Subsequently, she sought expungement of her criminal records in both Blaine and Canadian Counties pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18. The Blaine County District Court granted W.'s expungement request, but the Canadian County District Court denied it. The trial court based its denial on two Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals cases which interpreted the statute to allow one single conviction to be expunged, not multiple convictions. W. appealed. We retained the cause to examine expungement pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18. We hold that because the expungement was based on the Governor's pardon of all five convictions, the plain, unambiguous text of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 allows expungement of all of them. The appellant's unopposed request for appeal-related costs is granted. CAUSE PREVIOUSLY RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. Michael A. Risley, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Mitchell Thrower, Assistant District Attorney for Canadian County, El Reno, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee. Shannon J. Desherow, Assistant General Counsel for Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for OSBI/a required party. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 We retained this cause to address expungement pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18.1 We hold that because the expungement was based on the Governor's pardon of all five convictions, the plain, unambiguous language of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 allows expungement of all of them. We also grant the appellant's unopposed request for appeal-related costs. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The plaintiff/appellant, S. K. W. (W.) was convicted, of five crimes relating to the manufacturing, trafficking, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance in Blaine and Canadian Counties in 2001 and 2002.2 According to W., her arrest stemmed from her two-year addiction (2000-2002) to methamphetamine, which she struggled with after the unexpected death of her mother. Also according to W., while in the Department of Corrections custody, she dried out, got help dealing with her underlying emotional issues, and has been sober for nineteen years. ¶3 On January 5, 2021, the Governor, J. Kevin Stitt, issued W. a Certificate of Pardon, granting her a full pardon.3 On March 8, 2021, W. filed a Petition to Expunge. The State, through the Canadian County District Attorney (DA), objected to the expungement, arguing that the plain language of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18,4 does not allow the expungement of multiple offenses, even when all of the offenses have been pardoned by the Governor. The DA relied on Holder v. State, 2009 OK CIV APP 1, 219 P.3d 562 , and Olson v. State, 2012 OK CIV APP 85 to support his argument that because W. had four separate felony offenes and one misdemeanor offense, her Petition for Expungement must be denied. ¶4 W. responded, arguing that: 1) the Canadian County District Attorney is totally alone in objecting to the expungement; 2) Blaine County had already completed her expungement in that county; and 3) neither the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, the City of El Reno, the Blaine County District Attorney nor District Judge Woodward had disagreed that she was statutorily entitled to expungement. ¶5 After a May 10, 2021, hearing, the trial court issued and filed an order on May 17, 2021, denying W.'s Petition for Expungement. On May 27, 2021, W. appealed to this Court. On June 1, 2021, we retained the cause to address statutory requirements of expungement. On February 18, 2022, W. filed a separate application for her appeal-related costs to be awarded in this Court. I. BECAUSE THE EXPUNGEMENT WAS BASED ON THE GOVERNOR'S PARDON OF ALL FIVE CONVICTIONS, THE PLAIN, UNAMBIGUOUS TEXT OF 22 O.S. SUPP. 2019 §18 ALLOWS THE EXPUNGEMENT OF ALL OF THEM. ¶6 The DA argues that because W. had four separate felony offenses and one misdemeanor offense, the Petition for Expungement must be denied. W. argues that the plain language of the statute allows the expungement of multiple offenses when the Governor pardons all of the offenses. We agree with W. A. The Expungement Process/History. ¶7 In 1987, the Legislature authorized the district courts to expunge/seal certain criminal records with the enactment of 22 O.S. Supp. 1987 §18 which provided: Persons authorized to file a motion for expungement, as provided herein, must be within one of the following categories: 1. the person has been acquitted; 2. the person was arrested and no charges are filed or charges are dismissed within one (1) year of the arrest; or 3. the statute of limitations on the offense had expired and no charges were filed. For purposes of this act, 'expungement' shall mean the sealing of criminal records.5 Section 18, has been amended eighteen times since its 1987 enactment. Procedurally, a petition for expungement is lodged in the district courts,6 and expungement appeals from the district courts are brought to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.7 ¶8 The first amendment was in 1992. It added that a "person" "under eighteen (18) years of age at the time the offense was committed and the person has received a full pardon for the offense" as someone authorized to seek expungement.8 The Okla. Const. art. 6, §10 grants the Governor the power to pardon.9 Through multiple amendments, over fifteen years, the field of persons authorized to seek expungement has enlarged significantly. ¶9 The current version of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18(4), which is at issue in this cause, provides that persons authorized to file for expungement include the person who has received a full pardon by the Governor for the crime for which the person was sentenced.10 B. Interpretation and Application of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18. ¶10 We have not interpreted §18 as it relates to the Governor's pardon of criminal offenses.11 However, the Court of Civil Appeals, in Holder v. State, 2009 OK CIV APP 1, 219 P.3d 562 , and subsequently in Olson v. State, 2012 OK CIV APP 85, held that the plain language of the statute prohibits expungement of multiple offenses, regardless of a Governor's pardon. ¶11 Holder, supra, concerned an individual (Holder) who was convicted of four crimes in 1986 and 1991.12 On December 19, 2006, the Governor granted Holder a full pardon of the crimes. Holder then sought expungement under the 22 O.S. 2001 and Supp. 2004 §18 of the statute.13 Under those versions, persons who were under eighteen when the offense was committed, and received a full pardon, were eligible to seek expungement,14 but Holder, apparently did not qualify under this category. ¶12 Rather, Holder sought expungement under the subsection which provided expungement if "[t]he offense was a nonviolent felony, as defined in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the person has received a full pardon for the offense, the person has not been convicted of any other misdemeanor or felony, no felony or misdemeanor charges are pending against the person, and at least ten (10) years have passed since the conviction."15 The court said that despite the Governor's constitutional power to grant a pardon, and despite that a Governor's pardon is expressly listed in the statute as a reason for expungement, the statute does not allow an individual with more than one offense to be entitled to expungement. ¶13 Subsequently, another division of the Court of Civil Appeals followed Holder, supra, in Olson v. State, 2012 OK CIV APP 85, 286 P.3d 296 , when it held that the petitioner, Olson, was also not eligible for expungement because she had multiple convictions. Neither Holder nor Olson sought certiorari in this Court, and neither case is dispositive of this cause because they involved different subsections and different versions of the statute from the one at issue here. ¶14 Recently, in J.M.L. v. State, 2018 OK 103, 433 P.3d 726, in determining that the district courts' authority of expungement extended to municipal records, we explained that the remedial purpose of expungement requires a liberal construction of expungement statutes. The unanimous Court held that from the outset, the Legislature has made it convenient for a qualified person to pursue expungement. Expungement is "special relief . . . to aid those who are acquitted, exonerated, or who otherwise deserve a second chance at a 'clean record. . . .'" It has long been recognized that remedial statutes should be construed liberally so as to afford all the relief within the power of the court which the legislature intended to grant. ¶15 If we needed to apply rules of construction in this cause, we would be required to liberally construe it so as to afford all the relief which the legislature intended to grant. However, only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language, i.e. in cases of ambiguity or conflict, are rules of statutory construction employed.16 Title 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 unambiguously states that only one of the 15 categories listed in subsection A need to be met in order for a person to qualify for expungement. It states: "Persons authorized to file a motion for expungement, as provided herein, must be within one of the following categories."17 None of the 15 categories are followed by an "and," indicating that a person needed to qualify under more than one category to seek expungement.18 ¶16 Subsection 4 provides that one of the categories which qualifies is one in which the Governor has pardoned the individual, and it does not expressly limit the pardon to only one crime. It says: "The person has received a full pardon by the Governor for the crime for which the person was sentenced."19 Some of the other categories do discuss multiple crimes, and the consequences of multiple convictions and the type of convictions (felonies or misdemeanors), but subsection 4 does not.20 ¶17 We hold that the clear language of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 allows expungement of all of the crimes for which the Governor pardons an individual. Even if the use of the singular word "crime" rather than the plural "crimes" created an ambiguity as to whether the Legislature intended one and only one recprd pf a criminal conviction to be extinguishable when a Governor issues a pardon, a liberal construction of the term would be required to afford all the relief which the Legislature intended to grant and our holding would be unchanged. Holder v. State, 2009 OK CIV APP 1, 219 P.3d 562 , and Olson v. State, 2012 OK CIV APP 85, are expressly overruled to the extent that they could be read to stand for the proposition that the statute does not allow an individual with more than one offense to be entitled to expungement pursuant to the Governor's pardon. III. REQUEST FOR APPEAL-RELATED COSTS GRANTED. ¶18 Although W.'s attorney is representing her pro bono, on February 18, 2022, W. filed an application for appeal-related costs of the $200.00 filing fee and the $42.00 transcript fee which have both been paid. W. seeks these costs pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 §97821 and 12 O.S. 2011 App. 1, Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.14,22 in the event the trial court is reversed. The State has not filed an objection to the application for appeal-related costs. The application is hereby granted.23 CONCLUSION ¶19 After the Governor pardoned the appellant of five drug related crimes, appellant sought expungement of her criminal records pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18.24 Because the expungement was based on the Governor's pardon of all five convictions, the plain, unambiguous language of 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18 allows expungement of all of them.25 The appellant's unopposed request for appeal-related costs is granted. CAUSE PREVIOUSLY RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT