Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
E., M.
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 14-00009
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 8, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, reversed a Chautauqua County Court order that denied M.E.'s motion for conditional sealing of criminal records under CPL 160.58, which was enacted as part of the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The appellate court ruled on the novel issue of whether records related to convictions occurring before the statute's effective date can be sealed. M.E. had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in 1996 and had since turned her life around, completing a drug treatment program and maintaining a stable personal and professional life. The lower court had denied the sealing motion, arguing that it would retroactively apply CPL 160.58 to pre-2009 convictions, which it deemed improper. However, the appellate court disagreed, asserting that sealing the records under these circumstances does not constitute true retroactive application of the statute. It emphasized that the motion relates to civil jurisdiction since it concerns the sealing of records rather than altering the underlying criminal judgment. The court concluded that M.E. is eligible for conditional sealing, remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. CPL 160.58 establishes a process for limiting future access to existing criminal records without altering the underlying criminal judgments or invalidating past disclosures. Conditional sealing of eligible records is not automatic; it requires the motion court's discretion based on several nonexclusive factors outlined in CPL 160.58(3). The timing of the underlying events relative to the statute's effective date is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals has clarified that a statute is not considered retroactive simply because it pertains to past events. Legislative history indicates that the legislature did not impose specific retroactivity rules for CPL 160.58, as it governs future access to existing records. The text of CPL 160.58 does not exclude records of prior convictions. The defendant, having completed her sentence and a qualifying drug treatment program, is eligible for sealing her 1996 drug conviction under this statute. Consequently, the previous order is to be reversed, and the case remitted to County Court for evaluation of the discretionary factors in CPL 160.58(3).