Court Opinion

ID: 9797376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:19:20.795065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:48.862897
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
Dissents.
T1 I dissent to the Court's decision to vacate the District Court's order denying expungement as I find Appellant was not statutorily eligible to seek expungement of his arrest record.
T2 The record reflects Appellant was initially arrested for Soliciting a Minor for Sex and Indecent Exposure. The District Attorney then reviewed the arrest records and the supporting evidence in order to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. In making that legal decision, the District Attorney determined Solicitation of a Minor was not a criminal offense as set forth in the state criminal statutes. Based upon the evidence, the District Attorney determined the appropriate criminal charge to file was the misdemeanor offense prohibiting the making of obscene, threatening, or harassing phone calls. To this offense, Appellant pled guilty.
13 Under 22 O.S.Supp.1997, § 18(3) Appellant was not entitled to have his arrest record for Soliciting a Minor for Sex expunged as criminal charges were filed on that offensive conduct. That the appropriate criminal charge for the acts committed by Appellant happened to bear a name different from the accusation made by the arresting officer does not change the fact that a ecrimi-nal charge was filed for that conduct. The decision as to which provision of the criminal code the erime is to be charged is properly vested in the prosecutor, and not in the *1286arresting officer. See Romano v. State, 847 P.2d 368, 393 (Okl.Cr.1993); Dangerfield v. State, 742 P.2d 573 (Okl.Cr.1987). Here, criminal charges were filed on the conduct comprising the Solicitation of a Minor for Sex offense. Therefore, expungement under § 18(3) was not appropriate.
T4 While Appellant is not entitled to the expungement of his arrest record, he is entitled to have that arrest record corrected to note that the arrest culminated in the prosecution and conviction for Making Obscene, Threatening, or Harrassing Phone Calls.
11 5 I am authorized to state that Judge LILE joins in this dissent.