In re Expungement of Criminal Record concerning Mejia

Mejia’s Petition fulfills all the procedural requirements necessary under 5 V.I.C. § 3735. 5 V.I.C. § 3735 provides that:

(a) The Petition for expungement must include the following:

(1) The name of the Petitioner;

(2) The offense for which the Petitioner was arrested; and

(3) A certified copy of the arrest, complaint or information.

(b) The Petition must also include the following:

(1) A copy of the Petitioner’s criminal record; and

(2) A sworn statement by the Petitioner that there are no charges pending against him.

(c) The Petitioner shall serve the Department of Justice ...

See also Memorandum Opinion, In Re: Petition for Expungement of Criminal Records Concerning Camala S. Williams, ST-11-MC-41, Mar. 28, 2012.

Memorandum Opinion, In re: Petition for Expungement of Criminal Records Concerning Chanel A. Dorset, Mar. 26, 2013, page 2.

48 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.

See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 42 V.I. 469, 483 (3d Cir. 2000) (“It is clear from this provision [, 48 U.S.C. § 1611(c),] that the rules promulgated by the Territorial Court must be respectful of the legislature’s power to enact substantive law.”); 1 V.I.C. §§ 41-52.

49 V.I. 366, 373 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 464, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8 (1965)) (quoting Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 14, 61 S. Ct. 422, 85 L. Ed. 479 (1941)); see Hanna, 380 U.S. at 471 (“The line between ‘substance’ and ‘procedure’ shifts as the legal context changes.”).

Durant, 49 V.I. at 373 (internal citations omitted) (quoting In re: Richards, 52 F. Supp. 2d 522, 40 V.I. 161 (D.V.I. 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, In re: Richards, 42 V.I. at 469 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Hanna, 380 U.S. at 464).

Todmann v. People of the Virgin Islands, 57 V.I. 540, 544 (V. I. 2012) (quoting Durant, 49 V.I. at 373) (quoting In re Richards, 52 F.Supp. 2d at 528). The standard in Durant, however, is largely language taken from the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (1958) in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 464, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8 (1965). The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (1958) states that “[t]he Supreme Court [of the United States] shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United States in civil actions____Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury.”

Cf. 1 V.I.C. § 41 et seq.

Crawford v. Daly, 55 V.I. 66, 80, 2010 WL 5677946, at *8 (V.I. Super. 2010).

Rodenbough v. United States, 25 F.2d 13, 15 (3d Cir. 1928). See Port Constr. Co. v. Gov’t of the Virgin Islands, 359 F.2d 663, 5 V.I. 549, 553-54 (3d Cir. 1966) (“It is an established canon of statutory construction that all the provisions of a statute upon a subject are to be harmonized and read together so as to effectuate the purposes of the statute. And this is to be done in the light of the presumed desire and intent of the Legislature to enact a statute that is constitutional and otherwise valid.”).

See 1 V.I.Op.A.G. 119, 120 (“[T]hat interpretation which is reasonable and in harmony with the rest of the statute is preferable and more likely right than an interpretation which though reasonable standing by itself creates conflict and disharmony when matched with the rest of me statute.”); 1 V.I.Op.A.G. 67, 68 (“The rule of statutory construction is that the interpretation of a certain part of a statute is acceptable which enables the part to be consistent with the whole, i.e., with the entire statute.”).

See Rodenbough, 25 F.2d at 15; see generally West’s ALR Digest Statutes k181(1), ALRDG36 1K181(1).

1 V.I.C. § 42 provides that “[w]ords and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the English language. Technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to their peculiar and appropriate meaning.” 1 V.I.C. § 44 provides that “[t]he classification and organization of the titles, parts, chapters, subchapters, and sections of this Code, and the headings thereto, are made for the purpose of convenient reference and orderly arrangement, and no implication, inference, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn therefrom.”

While it is this Court’s view that the statute is not ambiguous, the Court can understand why some question as to the meaning of the 5 V.I.C. § 3734 exists. Specifically, reading 5 V.I.C. § 3734 as a purely procedural requirement that does not authorize the expungement *145of misdemeanor convictions, has the following implications on the statute as a whole: (1) 5 V.I.C. § 3734 is partially duplicative of the section immediately following it, 5 V.I.C. § 3735; (2) the language in 5 V.I.C. § 3734 “under this section,”15 (emphasis added) is meaningless because 5 V.I.C. § 3734, absent the title, would provide no' circumstances under which a person could seek expungement under that particular section, see Abramson 765 F. Supp. at 261 (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant”); (3) 5 V.I.C. § 3739 states that the “Superior Court may order the disclosure of the expunged conviction records .... ” (emphasis added), which is contradictory because the statute does not authorize expungement of convictions; and (4) ■ although titles of a statute are not considered law under 1 V.I.C. § 45, they may be an indication of legislative intent when a statute is otherwise ambiguous. See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439, 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function. They are interpreted according to the following well-established rules: (1) The title cannot control the plain words of the statute. (2) In case of ambiguity the court may consider the title to resolve uncertainty in the purview of the act or for the correction of obvious errors— Since the title of an act is essentially a part of the act and is itself a legislative expression of the general scope of the bill, it is proper to consider it in arriving at the intent of the legislature.”).

28th Leg., Bill No. 28-0151, 5 V.I.C. § 3735 (proposed Sept. 14, 2009).

See 28th Leg., Bill No. 28-0151, 5 V.I.C. § 3736 (proposed Sept. 14, 2009).

See 28th Leg., Regular Session, Oct. 28, 2009, Part III, at 55-56 (testimony of Sen. Shawn-Michael Malone) (“As the primary sponsor of Bill-28-0151, F d like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Richards who, a member of the Rules Committee, moved this legislation and I understand amended it appropriately, and to thank Attorney Harold Willocks for their input in at least for the first time putting on the books of this territory’s statutes an expungement statute where those persons who arrested and were not convicted can have their records clean and hopefully eliminate the need for those who can’t get a job to once again now have the opportunity to be gainfully employed____And of course there are many states, Pr. President and colleagues, that have expungement statutes. Some are very extensive, some are not. I think the original draft of the bill kind of scared a few people, but____this particular statute lies strictly in the hands of the courts and it’s a guideline statute. It doesn’t mean that if you commit a heinous crime that the courts are going to grant it. You still would have to petition the court, a hearing has to be sent, and (he judge would decide whether or not based on the arguments and the merits whether or not that person’s record should be expunged. But you know, just hot to create any fair and craziness in the community,... I understand from what I listened to in the debate just took all that stuff out and relegated it just to the arrest with no convictions and we’re all happy for now.”) (emphasis added); 28th Leg., Regular Session, Oct. 28, 2009, Part III, at 63-64 (testimony of Sen. Usie R. Richards) (“I had submitted a drafting request for the expungement of arrest records, and when I found out that I was preempted, I located the person that had the rights, that do happen to be Senator Malone, and inclusive in his bill was not only the expungement of records of arrests, but the expungement of convictions. And there is a clear distinct difference. Last Thursday, in the Rules and Judiciary meetings, we had the Deputy Attorney General Charlotte Poole-Davis, we had the Chief Public Defender Harold Willocks, and we had all seven members of the Rules and Judiciary Committee present who grilled them on both ends. As one of the primary sponsors, when I saw the concern being raised and to assure that we would address a large percentage in this community who have been picked up, arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and in some instances not even gone to trial but still maintain an arrest record, in some instances have gone to trial and found not guilty but still has an arrest record. [Therefore]... we went through the bill and had an amendment passed by all members of the Rules and Judiciary Committee.”)

5 V.I.C. § 3739 states that the “Superior Court may order the disclosure of the expunged conviction records ....”

See generally 2A SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47:38 (7th ed.); see Saslow v. Previti, 17 N.J. Misc. 29, 3 A.2d 811, 813 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1939) (“The courts of our State are not clothed with the power to supervise legislation and the power to construe does not embrace the power to legislate.”).

Super. CT. R. 400.6.1.

SUPER. Ct. R. 400.6.1.