In the Matter of the Expungement of the criminal/juvenile Records of J.A.

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1510-25 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL/JUVENILE RECORDS OF J.A.1 ________________________ Argued September 24, 2026 – Decided October 6, 2026 Before Judges Mawla and Augostini. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. XP-25-003049. Nicole Lynn Campellone, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant State of New Jersey (William E. Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney; Nicole Lynn Campellone, of counsel and on the brief). Michele E. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent J.A. (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Michele E. Friedman, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM 1 We use respondent's initials pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(c)(7). The State appeals from a December 11, 2025 order granting respondent J.A. reconsideration of an earlier order denying his expungement application. We affirm. In March 2025, J.A. filed for a regular expungement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2 and -3(b)(2), seeking to expunge convictions for fourth degree hindering and fourth degree abuse and neglect in 2018, and a 2020 arrest and subsequent dismissal of charges pursuant to a summons. The trial court initially denied the application finding J.A. was only eligible for a clean slate expungement, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, which would become available ten years from his satisfactory completion of probation following his most recent conviction in 2018. J.A. moved for reconsideration citing the Legislature's 2019 overhaul of the expungement statutes, which provided an additional means of expungement. Prior to the statutory amendments, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) provided a petitioner could never have more than one criminal conviction on their record to obtain a regular expungement because it limited relief to anyone who "does not otherwise have any prior or subsequent conviction for another crime." J.A. argued the amended statute eliminated "any prior" and now permitted expungement relief to anyone who does "not otherwise have any subsequent conviction for another A-1510-25 2 crime, whether in this State or any other jurisdiction." The revised N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) clarified that "a prior conviction for another crime, disorderly persons offense, or petty disorderly persons offense shall not bar presenting an application seeking expungement relief for the one criminal conviction and no more than three convictions for disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses that are the subject of the application." J.A. also pointed to In re T.O., which observed that under the older version of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) "someone who had multiple criminal convictions—not listed in a single judgment of conviction or committed as part of a series of events in a short period of time—was ineligible for expungement." 244 N.J. 514 , 535 (2021). The revised statute "enable[s] a person with multiple convictions to seek expungement of the latest conviction." Id. at n.5. The amendments "also provide for 'clean slate' expungement of multiple convictions ten years after the person's latest conviction." Ibid. The State argued the amendments did not apply to J.A. because he had multiple convictions and the new law only applied to persons convicted of one crime. According to the State, expanding expungement relief to persons with more than one conviction would permit partial expungements. J.A. was only eligible to apply for clean slate expungement when the time came. A-1510-25 3 The trial court found the Legislature's removal of "any prior" from the statute "expanded expungement relief to applicants[] who had an earlier conviction. A petitioner with multiple convictions became eligible to apply for expungement of their latest conviction." The court pointed to T.O., which held the amendments "expand opportunities for expungement," 244 N.J. at 526, and cited In re T.B., which stated the expungement statute's purpose is to provide a "second chance to rehabilitated offenders who have made a commitment to lead law-abiding lives." 236 N.J. 262, 267 (2019). The trial court noted J.A. had no subsequent convictions. Therefore, pursuant to the amended statute, he was "eligible for a regular expungement of his fourth degree hindering and fourth degree abuse and neglect convictions both of which were under" the same judgment of conviction, and the dismissal of the summons offense. The court found although "dismissals were not addressed specifically in the amendments, these non-convictions appear on criminal background reports and could have negative consequences to a petitioner in relation to employment, housing, and credit concerns." Because the Supreme Court interpreted the amendments as expanding the availability of expungement relief, it followed "that expungement relief should be expanded for non- convictions for individuals such as" J.A. A-1510-25 4 The State raises the following points on appeal: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITIONER'S EXPUNGEMENT [APPLICATION] BECAUSE BASED ON PETITIONER'S CRIMINAL HISTORY HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT RELIEF UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISION, AND HE IS NOT TIME ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CLEAN SLATE EXCEPTION. A. PETITIONER IS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2 BECAUSE HE HAS MULTIPLE, SEPARATE INDICTABLE CONVICTIONS NOT PART OF A SINGLE [JUDGMENT] OR RELATED INCIDENT. B. PETITIONER IS NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3 BECAUSE HE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE TEN-YEAR WAITING PERIOD REQUIREMENT FROM THE COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE. Although we review reconsideration decisions for an abuse of discretion, Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 389 (App. Div. 1996), this appeal calls upon us to interpret the revised expungement statute. Therefore, our review is de novo. In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557, 578 (2012). The de novo statutory interpretation process requires us to "ascertain the Legislature's intent." In re Expungement of A.W., ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2026) (slip op. at 8). "[T]he plain language of the statute, which is the 'best indicator' of the intent of the Legislature." Ibid. A-1510-25 5 In relevant part, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) permits expungement where the person has been convicted of multiple crimes or a combination of one or more crimes and one or more disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses under the laws of this State, all of which are listed in a single judgment of conviction, and does not otherwise have any subsequent conviction for another crime or offense in addition to those convictions included in the expungement application, whether any such conviction was within this State or any other jurisdiction. [(Emphasis added).] In T.O., Chief Justice Rabner, writing for a unanimous Court, explained the legislative intent behind the amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2. 244 N.J. at 526. Although the expungement statute is designed to offer a second chance to qualified petitioners, the Court observed the pre-amendment version of the statute limited its application to people convicted of one crime who did not "otherwise have any prior or subsequent conviction for another crime ." Id. at 523-24. The new "statute . . . no longer include[d] a bar on expungement for individuals with multiple convictions. The amended text of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) will instead allow people with multiple convictions to apply for expungement of their latest conviction." Id. at 524. As we observed in A.W., "[i]n amending the statute, the Legislature was aware of petitioners who had prior convictions A-1510-25 6 for which they were not seeking expungement, or which were ineligible to be expunged." A.W., ___ N.J. Super. at ___ (slip op. at 19). The amended law also permits a clean slate expungement. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3. This allows individuals to seek expungement of multiple convictions "after a period of ten years from their most recent conviction." T.O., 244 N.J. at 526. At the outset, we reject the State's arguments related to clean slate expungements because the trial court's decision does not turn on this part of the statute. What is squarely before us is whether J.A. has qualified to expunge his 2018 convictions on two indictable offenses contained in one judgment of conviction and the 2020 summons dismissal. There is no dispute J.A. has no subsequent convictions. The 2018 convictions are listed on one judgment of conviction. Therefore, J.A. qualified for a regular expungement under the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a). The trial court's decision to grant reconsideration and the expungement was neither a mistaken exercise of discretion nor a misapplication of law. Affirmed. A-1510-25 7