Opinion ID: 1265522
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Interpretation and Alaska Case Law

Text: Looking first to the statutory language, AS 12.55.085(e) refers only to setting aside the conviction; expungement is not mentioned. Similarly, Alaska Criminal Rule 35.2, which implements AS 12.55.085(e), reiterates the statutory mandate that a certificate setting aside the conviction be issued, but is silent as to expungement. Passed in 1965, AS 12.55.085 has no legislative history to illuminate the meaning of its text. However, we note that in contrast to AS 12.55.085(e), the legislature has explicitly addressed the issue of criminal records in a related context. [7] Though not necessarily dispositive, the fact that the legislature has expressly provided for the sealing of a minor's criminal record demonstrates both its recognition of the issue as well as its ability to act accordingly. [8] Similarly, holding that AS 12.55.085 allows for expunction renders the statute internally inconsistent. That is, if convictions that are set aside are to be expunged, then a portion of subsection (f)(3) of the statute is effectively meaningless. [9] Principles of statutory interpretation militate against such a reading. [10] Journey relies heavily on Mekiana v. State [11] in which the court of appeals held that the enactment of AS 12.55.085 was clearly intended to provide probationers who received a suspended imposition of sentence with the prospect of a clean slate and the promise of a new beginning... . [12] Journey argues that such a prospect has little meaning if it fails to protect probationers from the adverse effect that a criminal record has upon one's employment prospects and reputation. In citing Larson v. State, [13] Journey similarly argues that since AS 12.55.085 ensure[s] that a defendant will not be prejudiced in his later law-abiding life by the collateral consequences flowing from a criminal conviction, [14] expungement is but a natural extension of an already accepted doctrine. In Larson, the court of appeals held that a conviction which had been set aside under AS 12.55.085(e) could not be considered a conviction for presumptive sentencing purposes. [15] However, the court of appeals also held that the set aside conviction could be used for certain other purposes related to sentencing. Specifically, the court of appeals allowed the use of the conviction to justify the imposition of the maximum sentence. [16] Implicit in this holding is that the court of appeals anticipated the preservation of records of the set aside conviction for use in certain limited circumstances. Thus, as Larson makes clear, the premise that the collateral consequences of a set-aside verdict should be limited does not lead to the conclusion that expungement is part and parcel of a set aside under AS 12.55.085(e). [17] The pernicious effects of criminal records are well documented. Courts, [18] commentators, [19] and legislatures [20] have recognized that a person with a criminal record is often burdened by social stigma, subjected to additional investigation, prejudiced in future criminal proceedings, and discriminated against by prospective employers. [21] Though we recognize this unfortunate reality, Journey's overall argument that expungement is a necessary component of a set aside is unpersuasive. Moreover, the decisions from other states which Journey cites do not support his position. Unlike AS 12.55.085(e), several jurisdictions' set aside statutes expressly provide for expungement or the sealing of records. [22] In contrast, and as already discussed, AS 12.55.085(e) does not speak to expungement or the sealing of records.