Court Opinion

ID: 9568205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:01:28.102778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:28.189000
License: Public Domain

C.C. Schmucker, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. The Legislature has clearly provided the circuit court with authority to expunge a conviction for delivery of between 50 and 224 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iü).
Lifetime probation is a permissible sentence for delivery or possession with intent to deliver less than 50, between 50 and 224, or between 225 and 650 grams of certain controlled substances. For delivery of over 650 grams, the Legislature has mandated life imprisonment. The Legislature did not provide life imprisonment as a possible sentence for delivery of between 50 and 224 grams of cocaine.
The expungement statute provides in part as follows:
A person shall not apply to have set aside, nor may a judge set aside a conviction for a felony for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment or a conviction for a traffic offense. [MCL 780.621(2); MSA 28.1274(101)(2) (emphasis added).]
Because delivery of between 50 and 224 grams of cocaine is not punishable by life imprisonment, a con*81viction for that offense should be eligible for expungement.
The prosecution argues, and the majority agrees, that the lifetime probation statute does not allow for expungement because it provides that the period of probation shall not be reduced other than by a revocation that results in imprisonment. MCL 771.2(3); MSA 28.1132. The majority’s interpretation of these statutes suggests that a defendant who is sentenced to prison could have a conviction expunged, but a defendant who received lifetime probation is not eligible for expungement. The more serious offenders are sent to prison and are denied the opportunity of lifetime probation. The Legislature certainly could not have intended that the more serious offenders be eligible for expungement while the others may not.
The Legislature has specifically indicated that life offenses are not eligible for expungement. I would find that a trial court has authority to grant relief to a person on lifetime probation. However, I would remand to the trial court because the court failed to engage in any meaningful analysis of either the circumstances and behavior of the applicant or the public welfare.
At the hearing, the trial court remarked that the expungement statute does not prevent the court from granting expungement, that the conviction was almost ten years old, and that the offense involved fifty grams of cocaine.1
The expungement statute provides as follows:
*82If the court determines that the circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the applicant’s conviction to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the conviction and that setting aside the conviction is consistent with the public welfare, the court may enter an order setting aside the conviction. The setting aside of the conviction under this act is a privilege and conditional and is not a right. [MCL 780.621(9); MSA 28.1274(101)(9).]
In People v Boulding, 160 Mich App 156, 158; 407 NW2d 613 (1986), the Court noted:
The statute by its plain language requires a balancing of factors, specifically a determination of “circumstances and behavior” of a petitioner balanced against the “public welfare.” In ruling on such matters, enough of a determination must be provided from which to analyze the manner in which the court’s discretion was exercised and the basis for the court’s determination.
Although the defendant is eligible for expungement, mere eligibility is not enough. The court should have balanced the factors. The Legislature has clearly indicated by the substantial mandatory minimum penalty for this offense that it is one of the most serious offenses in this state. Many life offenses, which are not eligible for expungement, do not have a mandatory minimum of more than ten years.
The court did not engage in balancing. The court did not exercise discretion, but simply granted the relief on the basis of the defendant’s eligibility for expungement. I would remand this matter to the trial court so the court can engage in the necessary balancing of factors.

 The record suggests that this delivery was not simply 50 grams, but was 139 grams of cocaine.