Prisoners Have No Right to Petition for Expungement of Non-Conviction Records in Pennsylvania

On September 9, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that an incarcerated person has no right to petition a court for expungement of charges from one’s record that did not result in a conviction.

Mark Wallace has a criminal history that spans 14 pages with a total of 228 charges, the majority of which did not result in convictions. In 2010 and 2011, while incarcerated in federal prison, Wallace filed eight separate motions in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County seeking expungement of approximately 150 of those charges that did not result in a conviction. The court denied all eight of the motions without a hearing and Wallace appealed to the superior court.

Finding the court of common pleas erred in not providing Wallace a due process hearing, and in not explaining its reasoning for the decision, the superior court reversed and ordered the lower court to give Wallace a hearing and "provide a comprehensive list of each criminal action in question with the disposition of each charge contained therein." The trial court was further directed "to determine in each particular case whether justice requires expungement."

The State filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the state Supreme Court, seeking to halt the hearing. On May 22, 2013, the petition was granted and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and held that Wallace, because he was incarcerated, had no right to petition for expungement of his records. The court cited five factors upon which it based its ruling:

(1) prison inmates and free persons are not similarly situated for due process purposes;

(2) a prisoner's reputation is already tarnished;

(3) the state has a vital interest in retaining a prisoner's criminal history information;

(4) security, and other safety concerns, such as transporting a prisoner to court for a hearing; and

(5) a prisoner may make such a petition upon his release.

The Supreme Court noted that retaining a full record of a prisoner's past conduct is important because those records may be needed for parole consideration or for imposing discipline for misconduct while incarcerated.

The court found that, at least in Wallace's case, any "social stigma" brought about by his 14-page criminal history would not be ameliorated by expunging a portion of his charges because he would still be a convicted felon with a lengthy record of convictions.

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court and dismissed all eight of Wallace's appeals. See: Commonwealth v. Wallace, 97 A.3d 310 (Pa. 2014).

Related legal case