•
In the past I have blogged about the narrow scope of Mississippi’s Expungement statute, as well as the collateral consequences of a conviction. The Mississippi Legislature has finally decided to heed the public’s call for a more expansive expungement statute.
The new statute allows a first time offender to have one felony expunged five years after completion of the terms and conditions of the sentence and conviction. Most notably, for larceny and possession of a controlled substance.
The following is a link to the text of the full bill:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/HB/0100-0199/HB0160SG.pdf
•
I field numerous inquiries from people interested in having a felony conviction expunged from their record. Unfortunately, most are disappointed when I explain the limited scope of Mississippi’s Expungement Statute found generally at Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 99-15-26. In short save for offenses which qualify for non-ajudication under 99-15-26, and were sentenced under those provisions, the vast majority of felony convictions can simply not be expunged.
The inability to have an offense expunged has serious conseqences for the offender attempting to successfully reenter society. It has become routine practice for even the most low skill jobs to conduct a background check as part of the hiring process. Thus, an offender’s prior record serves as a Scarlett Letter closing the door on numerous employment and educational opportunities, long after they have completed their sentences.
Although, Mississippi has yet to adopt equitable expungement, courts in other jurisdictions have used their inherent equitable powers to expunge criminal records. See, e.g., Bradford v. Mahan, 548 P. 2d at 1231; Natwig v. Webster, 562 F. Supp. 225 (D. R.I. 1983); United States v. Bohr, 406 F. Supp. 1218 (E. D. Wis. 1976); see generally O’Neal v. State, 185 Ga. App. 838, 365 S. E. 2d 894 (1988) (superior courts have authority to exercise all powers appertaining to their jurisdiction); Johnson v. State, 177 Ga. 881, 171 S. E. 699 (1933) (superior courts possess “inherent powers” not specifically granted by law). In deciding what constitutes the unusual or extreme case justifying expungement, courts have balanced the government’s needs for the records against the harm that results from maintaining the records. Natwig v. Webster, 562 F. Supp. at 228.
Given the long-term implications of a felony conviction, the Mississippi Supreme Court should sanction the use of a court’s equitable power to expunge criminal records when justice so requires.