Court Opinion

ID: 9648486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:23:44.608993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:31.951763
License: Public Domain

P.A.Hollingsworth, Justice, dissenting. When we interpret legislative acts there is a rule of law to be found which will serve any view. The majority has found one to justify its position. However, that rule is not the rule of construction which we apply in interpretingcriminal or punitive statutes. They must be strictly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of the accused. Knapp v. State, 283 Ark. 346, 676 S.W.2d 729 (1984); Clayborn v. State, 278 Ark. 533, 647 S.W.2d 433 (1983); Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W.2d 729 (1978). The reason a prior conviction under the Youthful Offender Alternative Service Act of 1975 cannot be used to enhance a sentence is simple: the prior conviction no longer exists. The act is plain in its language: “‘Expunge’. . . further signifies] that the defendant was completely exonerated of any criminal purpose and said disposition shall not affect any civil right or liberties of said defendant.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2344 (Repl. 1977). (emphasis added) The act is a discretionary sentencing device available to a trial judge in deserving cases. The purpose of the act is to give offenders sentenced under the act the extra support of an expunged record in the hope that that support will lessen the chance of repeat offenses and simply to give some people a second chance. The use of the act reflects a willingness by the state to gamble that the accused will not fail society again. The majority ignores the real purpose of the act. They find that the act only offers a false promise, to be reneged upon in circumstances not specified by the act. I would rather the state make a mistake than dishonor its word. We are holding that the slate is not wiped clean — when the act says it is. In this case, the purpose of the act was not fulfilled but that does not justify the action taken by the trial court. The act has already been applied to Gosnell, and the effect of that application is that his prior conviction under the act no longer exists except for purposes of determining whether the act can be applied to Gosnell again. The language from the act seized upon by the majority only dictates that a judge cannot apply the act to Gosnell because he is no longer an “eligible offender.” Furthermore, the Latin maxim cited by the majority supports my view. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another. The act clearly states that expunged felonies can be used to render one who appears to be an eligible offender ineligible for application of the act. It does not state that the expunged convictions may be used to enhance a subsequent sentence. Thus, the act gives an affirmative statement regarding for what purposes expunged convictions may be used and thereby impliedly denies any other use. I would reverse. Hickman, J. and Purtle, JJ., join in this dissent.