| Opinion: | Mann v. State, 2022 OK Civ App 6 |
| Subject Matter: | Expungement |
| Date Decided: | February 18, 2022 |
| Trial Court: | District Court of Cleveland County; Judge Lori Walkley |
| Route to this Court: | Appeal from order granting Petition for Expungement |
| Facts: | On June 18, 2014, Alyssa Mann was arrested and charged with Count 1: possession of a controlled dangerous substance and Count 2: driving under the influence (Case No. 1085). She received a seven-year deferred sentence as to both charges. Count 1 was charged as a felony, possession of a controlled dangerous substance was later reclassified as a misdemeanor. On January 28, 2015, Mann was arrested and charged with Count 1: driving under suspension and Count 2: possession of a controlled dangerous substance (Case No. 129). Mann received a two-year deferred sentence as to both charges. On June 1, 2015, Mann was again arrested and charged with Count 1: driving under the influence and Count 2: driving under suspension (Case No. 1023). She received a two-year deferred sentence as to Count 1 and a one-year deferred sentence as to Count 2. On June 24, 2020, Mann filed a petition for expungement and/or application for post-conviction relief from the January 28 and June 1 charges. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) objected stating that the seven-year deferred sentence from the 2014 case qualified as a pending charge as used in 22 O.S. §18(A)(8), thus precluding the expungement or those two cases. The district court expunged the cases and OSBI appealed. |
| Standard of Review: | The issue on appeal here is whether the deferred sentence in Case No. 1085 from 2014 constitutes a pending charge under the statute. Whether a deferred sentence is a “pending charge” as used in 22 O.S. §18(A)(8) presents a question of law. “Questions of law, including the interpretation of statutes, are reviewed de novo. Under this standard, [the court] ha[s] plenary, independent and nondeferential authority to determine whether the trial court erred in its legal ruling.” Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, ¶ 8, 85 P.3d 841, 845. |
| Analysis: | A deferred sentence in Oklahoma does not end criminal proceedings. In fact, it leaves a charge pending and the defendant remains under indictment until completing the deferred sentence. United States v. Saiz, 797 F.3d 853, 856 (10th Cir. 2015). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that, “[i]n a deferred sentence, the district court retains jurisdiction and only a conditional order, not a judgment and sentence, is entered.” Nguyen v. State, 1989 OK CR 6, ¶5, 772 P.2d 401, 403, overruled on other grounds by Gonseth v. State, 1994 OK CR 9, 871 P.2d 51. Mann’s argument that she falls within one of the fifteen categories in 22 O.S. Supp. 2019 §18(A) that “no misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against the person” is incorrect. A deferred judgment remains pending until final judgment is entered. Mann’s deferred sentence is a pending charge as used in 22 O.S. §18(A)(8), and she does not qualify for expungement. The plain meaning of the terms supports this conclusion. Plaintiff filed the petition for expungement of records related to Case No. 1085 on January 19, 2021, no objections were raised, and the district court granted the expungement. That order is not involved in this appeal. Plaintiff contended that this case is now moot because of that expungement. This case fits into the second exception of Oklahoma mootness doctrine, which is that “the challenged event is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Baby F. v. Oklahoma Cty. Dist. Ct., 2015 OK 24, §12, 348 P..3d 1080, 1084. For this reason, the Court addressed the issue to prevent future confusion, as the question of whether a deferred sentence was a pending charge in 22 O.S. §18(A)(8) has not been answered by an appellate court in Oklahoma and may continue to evade review. |
| Outcome: | Trial court’s decision reversed and remanded. |
| Vote: | 3-0. Prince, P.J., Swinton, J., and Mitchell, V.C.J. (author), concur. |
| Other: | N/A |