Title: Necaise v. Virginia
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 100157
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 2011

Present:  Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., 
          and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. 
 
SHAWN S. NECAISE 
              OPINION BY 
 
 
 
SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL 
v.   Record No. 100157  
            April 21, 2011 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 
Timothy S. Fisher, Judge 
 
 
Code § 19.2-392.2 provides for the expungement of police 
and court records in certain specified circumstances.  This 
appeal presents the question whether those circumstances 
include a situation in which a defendant seeks expungement of 
records of felony charges disposed of by the court's 
acceptance of the defendant's guilty pleas to lesser included 
misdemeanor offenses.  We answer that question in the 
negative. 
Facts and Proceedings 
 
The facts are undisputed.  On October 30, 2007, Shawn S. 
Necaise was arrested on warrants charging two felonies:  
Felonious disregard of a police officer's signal to stop, in 
violation of Code § 46.2-817, and feloniously assaulting a 
police officer engaged in public duties, in violation of Code 
§ 18.2-57.1 
                     
 
1 Necaise was also charged with several misdemeanor 
offenses that are not involved in this appeal. 
 
The felony cases came before the Newport News General 
District Court for preliminary hearing on January 22, 2008.  
The records of the court show that the charges were "reduced 
to 46.2-817 (misdemeanor)" and "reduced to 18.2-57 assault and 
battery," respectively.  Necaise, represented by counsel, 
entered guilty pleas to both misdemeanors.  The court accepted 
the pleas, found Necaise guilty of the two misdemeanors and, 
on the Commonwealth's recommendation, imposed fines and 
suspended jail sentences for those two misdemeanors.  The 
Commonwealth took nolle prosequi as to the other pending 
misdemeanor charges. 
 
In 2009, Necaise filed a petition in the Circuit Court of 
the City of Newport News pursuant to Code § 19.2-392.2, asking 
for expungement of all police and court records pertaining to 
the two felony charges and the misdemeanors that had been 
dismissed on the Commonwealth's nolle prosequi.  The court 
entered an order of expungement as to the misdemeanors 
disposed of by nolle prosequi, but denied the petition for 
expungement of the records pertaining to the two felony 
charges.  We awarded Necaise an appeal. 
Analysis 
 
In relevant part, Code § 19.2-392.2(A) provides as 
follows: 
 
2
A.  If a person is charged with the commission 
of a crime or any offense defined in Title 18.2, and 
 
1.  Is acquitted, or 
 
2.  A nolle prosequi is taken or the charge is 
otherwise dismissed, including dismissal by accord 
and satisfaction pursuant to § 19.2-151, he may file 
a petition setting forth the relevant facts and 
requesting expungement of the police records and the 
court records relating to the charge. 
 
Necaise assigns error only to the circuit court's refusal to 
expunge the two felony records.  The parties agree that the 
dispositive question is whether those charges were "otherwise 
dismissed" under the language of Code § 19.2-392.2(A)(2), 
quoted above.  The simple answer is that the charges were 
never dismissed.  Rather, they were "reduced" to lesser 
included offenses that resulted in convictions. 
 
Because the misdemeanors of which Necaise was convicted 
were lesser included offenses of the felonies with which he 
was charged, all of the elements of the offenses of which he 
was convicted were subsumed within the felony charges and they 
form the sole bases for the convictions.  Expungement of the 
felony charges would distort the record by leaving the 
convictions without any foundation, suggesting that they had 
been arbitrarily imposed.  The record as it stands contains a 
true account of the events that actually occurred and creates 
no injustice to either party. 
 
A more fundamental reason for our holding is provided by 
the statement of legislative policy contained in Code § 19.2-
 
3
392.1, which was enacted simultaneously with Code § 19.2-392.22 
to explain its purpose.  Styled "Statement of policy," Code 
§ 19.2-392.1 provides: 
The General Assembly finds that arrest records can 
be a hindrance to an innocent citizen's ability to 
obtain employment, an education and to obtain 
credit.  It further finds that the police and court 
records of those of its citizens who have been 
absolutely pardoned for crimes for which they have 
been unjustly convicted can also be a hindrance.  
This chapter is intended to protect such persons 
from the unwarranted damage which may occur as a 
result of being arrested and convicted. 
 
 
The legislative intent underlying the expungement 
statutes is made clear by the quoted language.  It was not to 
distort the record of events that actually occurred, but was 
to avoid injustice to an "innocent citizen" falsely accused 
and unjustly convicted. 
One who is found guilty is not an "innocent citizen" 
entitled to the benefit of the expungement statutes.  The same 
reasoning applies when a court has found the evidence 
sufficient to support a conviction, even where the charge was 
later dismissed.  Daniel v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 523, 530, 
604 S.E.2d 444, 447 (2004).  Similarly, where a defendant 
pleads guilty or nolo contendere but the charge is later 
dismissed without a finding of guilt upon successful 
completion of probationary terms, the defendant is not an 
                     
 
2 1977 Acts ch. 675. 
 
4
"innocent citizen" entitled to expungement of the records.  
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 255 Va. 552, 554, 499 S.E.2d 276, 277 
(1998); Gregg v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 504, 507, 316 S.E.2d 
741, 742-43 (1984).   
Conclusion 
 
Necaise, having been found guilty of offenses charged 
within the warrants upon which he was arrested, was not an 
"innocent citizen" entitled to the benefit of the expungement 
statutes.  For the reasons stated, we will affirm the judgment 
of the circuit court.3 
Affirmed. 
                     
 
3 A different result is reached where a case has been 
tried on the merits, resulting in a conviction for a lesser 
included offense rather than the offense charged, and that 
verdict is then set aside and the defendant is retried.  That 
situation is governed by Code § 19.2-285, which provides in 
pertinent part:  "If the verdict be set aside and a new trial 
granted the accused, he shall not be tried for any higher 
offense than that of which he was convicted on the last 
trial."  In Jones v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 231, 235, 228 
S.E.2d 127, 130 (1976), Kuckenbecker v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 
619, 623, 101 S.E.2d 523, 526 (1958), and Taylor v. 
Commonwealth, 186 Va. 587, 589-90, 43 S.E.2d 906, 908 (1947), 
we held that the statutory predecessors of Code § 19.2-285 
mandated that, in a case retried after a verdict had been set 
aside, conviction of a lesser included offense at the first 
trial operated as an acquittal of the higher offense charged.  
The statute is based upon obvious considerations of double 
jeopardy.  In each of those cases, the accused was in jeopardy 
of conviction of the higher offense as soon as the jury was 
sworn at the first trial.  The Commonwealth then had its 
opportunity to prove the elements of the higher offense beyond 
a reasonable doubt, but failed to do so.  A retrial for the 
higher offense would have been constitutionally infirm as well 
 
5
                                                                
as a violation of the statute.  Those considerations are 
inapplicable here. 
 
6