Opinion ID: 1265522
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cases Interpreting the Federal Youth Corrections Act

Text: Lastly, Journey relies upon Doe v. Webster [30] in which the court rejected the government's argument that the use of the term set aside indicated a Congressional intent not to allow expunction. The Webster court based its holding on a provision of the former Federal Youth Corrections Act which provided a procedure for youthful offenders to have convictions set aside. [31] 18 U.S.C. § 5021(b) (repealed 1984). Journey correctly notes that when construing AS 12.55.085, this court has looked to cases construing the former Federal Youth Corrections Act. [32] Nonetheless, Webster is not entirely helpful to Journey's case. Though it construed the Act to mandate expunction of the conviction, the Webster court held that the Act did not require expunction of the record of arrest. [33] With regard to the defendant's arrest record, the Webster court applied the federal test for exercise of a court's inherent authority to expunge, and held that the defendant had not shown any extraordinary circumstances warranting expunction. [34] Furthermore, a number of federal circuits have reached a result contrary to Webster, concluding that the Act requires expunction of neither arrest nor conviction records. [35] In short, we conclude that our case law, the decisions of our sister states, and the application of traditional canons of statutory construction all lead to the conclusion that AS 12.55.085(e) does not authorize a court to expunge a defendant's criminal record relating to the underlying conviction which is to be set aside.