January 28, 2025
Maryland’s Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning unsatisfactorily closed probations and expungement eligibility. Specifically, the Court will determine whether those with such probations can qualify to expunge their records.
This hearing could significantly impact those unable to receive expungements under Maryland’s law. Maryland’s Criminal Procedure Article dictates when a misdemeanor conviction becomes eligible for expungement. According to the Article, eligibility happens 10 years after the individual “satisfies the sentence or sentences imposed for all convictions for which expungement is requested, including parole, probation, or mandatory supervision.”
In this case, the issue is the law’s use of the term “satisfies.” The Court of Special Appeals interpreted this term to mean that an individual cannot receive an expungement if probation is unsatisfactorily closed. This interpretation is what the plaintiff encountered after he failed to obtain permission before changing his address and receiving visits at home. After pleading technical violations of the terms of his probation, the judge sentenced him to four days of incarceration and unsatisfactorily closed his probation.
Later, the plaintiff requested expungement of the original offense, but the state opposed this. The Circuit Court favored the state’s decision. To satisfy his sentence, the Court agreed that the plaintiff had to complete his probation without violating it.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued about the terms for him to qualify for expungement. According to the plaintiff, he needed to complete the sentence imposed for violating the terms of probation, which he did. However, the state focused on the unsatisfactory close of the plaintiff’s probation. It contended that he could not satisfy the terms of his sentence due to the unsatisfactorily closed probation.
The Court of Special Appeals compared the expungement law to those governing the expungement of lesser offenses. As such, it found that these laws require “satisfactory completion” of all sentencing terms. The Court also reviewed the intent of the term “satisfies,” which appeared less definitive. However, nothing indicated that the legislature would have reason to adopt a less stringent standard than the one for lesser offenses. This reasoning is why the Court ruled against the appellant.
However, Maryland’s Supreme Court agreed to review the case and will now have the final say. It remains uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. Meanwhile, some legislators announced their intent to introduce a bill to correct the perceived gap in the state’s expungement rules due to the lower courts’ decisions.