FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013)
In the Matter to Expunge the Criminal Record
of Petitioner Jimmy Suka,
JIMMY SUKA,
Petitioner.
CSSC PETITION NO. 005-2013
OPINION & ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXPUNCTION OF CRIMINAL RECORD
Camillo Noket
Chief Justice
Hearing: February 4, 2013
Decided: February 12, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
Fredrick A. Hartmann
P.O. Box 453
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the State:
Ken Uehara
State Prosecutor
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
Expunction of a criminal record can be applied 1) pursuant to statute; 2) where necessary to preserve basic legal rights, and 3) based on acquittal. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 556 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
The Chuuk State Supreme Court will deny a motion to expunge because it has no power to strike from the public records all evidence of the charges against (and the convictions of) a defendant, who seeks a way around the constitutional and statutory proscriptions which is unavailable even to one who has been pardoned for his crimes. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 556 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
While a person's assertion that, given his rehabilitation over time and his good work in the community and on behalf of his municipality in the years since his conviction, it is a "manifest injustice" that his felony conviction prohibits him from serving in Congress, may be grounds for a pardon, it is not a valid ground for setting aside a conviction and permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea under Rule 32(d). In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 556-57 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
Although a criminal record burdens a person with social stigma and potential discrimination by prospective employers, absent the presence of a statutory infirmity in the underlying criminal proceeding, or an illegality in the arrest and following proceedings, the mere impediment to a person's ability to run for an office is insufficient to reach the threshold for a violation of a basic legal right. The qualifications for placing a name on the ballot were determined by Congress and the FSM Constitution, and an expunction, merely to meet the prescribed requirements, would not fall under the category of rights expunction may be used to preserve. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
Jurisdictions that are properly able to invoke the authority to expunge derive the power from a relevant statute. An enabling Chuuk state statute would be necessary to effectuate an expunction, but no such statute currently exists in Chuuk. If the legislature had intended for the Chuuk State Supreme Court to have the power to expunge a record, the legislature would have specifically provided that power. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
When state law does not provide for expunction of a criminal record, state courts may only consider expunction requests using ancillary jurisdiction, which is a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and proceedings that arise out of a claim that is properly before the court. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
Ancillary jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and proceedings that arise out of a claim that is properly before the court. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
A court can employ ancillary jurisdiction as 1) to allow a single court to dispose of factually interdependent claims; and 2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees. When courts refer to the "inherent power" of a court to consider a claim, they refer to the latter of these two uses of ancillary jurisdiction. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
A court exercising only its inherent power would need a very extraordinary and compelling case to expunge and seal not only the judicial branch's conviction records but also the arrest records maintained by the executive branches since that would implicate separation of powers concerns. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
Irrespective of the source of power, courts relying on inherent judicial authority to expunge criminal records specify that said power should be sparingly used and no court has held that the government's interest in maintaining accurate criminal histories can be outweighed by an individual's right to privacy in any but exceptional circumstances. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 557-58 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
Absent explicit authorization from the Chuuk Legislature, the judiciary has no power to expunge a criminal record. The Chuuk State Supreme Court has generally regarded expunction of criminal records
as a matter of legislative prerogative that may only be granted or withdrawn by the legislature. Expunction of such records is therefore a matter of legislative discretion, and when a petitioner has not attacked the validity of the underlying conviction, the court must reject his contention that it has inherent jurisdiction over his petition for expunction. In re Suka, 18 FSM Intrm. 554, 558 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2013).
* * * *
CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:
This cause comes before the Court on the Petitioner's Petition to Expunge and Seal. The Court being fully advised FINDS:
On January 11, 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition requesting the record of Jimmy Suka be expunged. Petitioner sought relief from this conviction in the Chuuk State Court on the ground that he has served his sentence and committed no further crimes. Additionally, Petitioner states that the prior conviction prevents him from being placed on the ballot for the 2013 election.
In this action, Petitioner was charged with, and convicted of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in violation of Chuuk State Criminal Code, State law No. 6-66, § 407.1 The Sentencing Order filed on March 12, 2009, sentenced Petitioner to imprisonment for three (3) years for the conviction subject to delineated conditions.2 Petitioner contends that his one time conviction, from which he argues he has he has been sufficiently rehabilitated, serves as a significant hindrance to his ability to secure employment.
The question is whether the court has the power to authorize expunction of a criminal record where the legality of the underlying criminal conviction is not being challenged.
Expunction of a criminal record can be applied (1) Pursuant to statute; (2) where necessary to preserve basic legal rights, and (3) based on acquittal.3 FSM v. Kihleng, 8 FSM Intrm. 323, 325 (Pon. 1998); see also FSM v. Erwin, 16 FSM Intrm. 42, 43 (Chk. 2008). The Chuuk State Supreme Court has no power to strike from the public records all evidence of the charges against a defendant, and his convictions, who seeks a way around the constitutional and statutory proscriptions which is unavailable even to one who has been pardoned for his crimes. It will therefore deny his motion to expunge. Trust
Territory v. Edgar, 11 FSM Intrm. 303, 308 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002). While a person's assertion that, given his rehabilitation over time, and his good work in the community and on behalf of his municipality in the years since his conviction, it is a "manifest injustice" that his felony conviction prohibits him from serving in Congress, may be grounds for a pardon, it is not a valid ground for setting aside a conviction and permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea under Rule 32(d). Edgar, 11 FSM Intrm. at 306.
Preservation of Basic Legal Rights
Petitioner alleges a violation of his basic legal rights and his right to privacy. Petitioner further alleges a significant hindrance to securing employment due to the presence of a conviction, additionally, Petitioner points out that he has lost the right to hold public office due to his conviction, consequently urging that the criminal conviction be expunged.
It is understandable for the Petitioner to emphasize that a criminal record burdens him with social stigma and potential discrimination by prospective employers, however, absent the presence of a statutory infirmity in the underlying criminal proceeding, or an illegality in the arrest and following proceedings, the mere impediment to Petitioner's ability to run for an office, is insufficient to reach the threshold for a violation of a basic legal right. The qualifications for placing a name on the ballot, were determined by Congress and the FSM Constitution, and an expunction, merely to meet the prescribed requirements, would not fall under the category of rights expunction may be used to preserve.
Statutory Authority
The expunction of a criminal record, in an appropriate case falling under this category, requires an enabling statute. Therefore, jurisdictions that are properly able to invoke the authority to expunge derive the power from a relevant statute. In the instant case, an enabling Chuuk State statute would be necessary to effectuate the requested expunction. No such statute currently exists in Chuuk State. If the legislature had intended for the Court to have the power to expunge a record, the legislature would have specifically provided that power.
Ancillary Jurisdiction
When state law does not provide for expunction of a criminal record, state courts may only consider expunction requests using ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction is "a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and proceedings that arise out of a claim that is properly before the court." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 928 (9th ed. 2009)
Ancillary jurisdiction covers claims incidental to a court's original jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution. In a US Supreme Court case, a unanimous Court articulated the instances in which a court can employ ancillary jurisdiction as (1) to allow a single court to dispose of "factually interdependent" claims; and (2) to "enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." When courts refer to the "inherent power" of a court to consider a claim, they refer to the latter of these two uses of ancillary jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379-80, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676-77, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391, 397 (1994). However, "a court exercising only its inherent power would need a very extraordinary and compelling case to expunge and seal not only the judicial branch's conviction records but also the arrest records maintained by the executive branches since that would implicate separation of powers concerns. Erwin, 16 FSM Intrm. at 44.
Irrespective of the source of power, courts relying on inherent judicial authority to expunge criminal records specify that said power should be sparingly used and no court has held that the
government's interest in maintaining accurate criminal histories can be outweighed by an individual's right to privacy in any but exceptional circumstances. Petitioner has not exhibited circumstances so extenuating that expunction would be the appropriate remedy.
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court concludes that absent explicit authorization from the Chuuk Legislature, the judiciary has no power to expunge Petitioner's criminal record. Moreover, this Court has generally regarded expunction of criminal records as a matter of legislative prerogative and may only be granted or withdrawn by the legislature. Expunction of such records is therefore a matter of legislative discretion. Because Petitioner has not attacked the validity of the underlying conviction, the Court rejects his contention that we have inherent jurisdiction over his petition for expunction.
For the reasons above, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Expunction of Criminal Record is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of the Order to the Petitioner and all interested agencies.
_____________________________________Footnotes:
1 CSSC CR. NO. 067-2007.
2 The Order articulates that Petitioner was to serve fifteen (15) successive weekends in prison, beginning on Friday, April 3, 2009 at 5:00 P.M. The suspended portion of Petitioner's sentence was subject to the conditions of probation including, but not limited to, the performance of one hundred (100) hours of community service. Court records reflect that Petitioner has completed all the requirements and has not been charged with any additional crimes to date.
3 Petitioner was not acquitted of the crime in question, rather, he was found guilty, therefore, this category does not apply.
* * * *