Background
N.T.A. faced multiple criminal charges filed in December 2022, including obstruction of justice, destruction of property, selling tobacco to a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and purchasing alcohol for a minor. In February 2023, he pleaded guilty to two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in exchange for the Commonwealth agreeing to nolle pros (decline to prosecute) several related charges. Four months later, he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in exchange for additional charges being nolle prossed or dismissed.
Subsequently, N.T.A. petitioned the circuit court to expunge the nolle prossed and dismissed charges. The Commonwealth objected, arguing that because the charges were part of a plea agreement and N.T.A. had pleaded guilty to related charges, the remaining charges were ineligible for expungement. The circuit court initially granted some petitions but reversed course on reconsideration, denying all expungement petitions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s denial. The court held that Virginia Code § 19.2-392.2(A)(2) clearly permits expungement of charges when “a nolle prosequi is taken or the charge is otherwise dismissed.” The statute uses the disjunctive “or,” meaning charges may be expunged on either ground independently. Critically, the statute imposes no condition that charges must be unrelated to other charges or free from plea agreements to qualify for expungement.
The court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that nolle prossed charges are ineligible for expungement merely because they were part of a plea agreement. The plain language of the statute contains no such limitation. Additionally, the court held that charges dismissed without a guilty plea, finding of guilt, or judicially imposed conditions constitute “otherwise dismissed” charges eligible for expungement under the statute.
The court further clarified that the expungement statute’s “innocent person” requirement applies charge-by-charge, not to the defendant’s overall conduct or guilt regarding other offenses. Because N.T.A. did not plead guilty to the specific charges he sought to expunge—he pleaded guilty only to separate charges arising from the same circumstances—he occupies the status of innocent with respect to the charges he petitioned to expunge.
Key Takeaways
- Nolle prossed charges are eligible for expungement under the plain language of Va. Code § 19.2-392.2(A)(2), regardless of whether they were negotiated as part of a broader plea agreement.
- The “innocent person” requirement in expungement law applies on a per-charge basis; a defendant’s guilt on related charges does not defeat expungement eligibility for charges to which he did not plead guilty.
- Courts must follow the plain language of expungement statutes and cannot impose unstated conditions or limitations, such as requiring charges to be unrelated to guilty pleas to other offenses.
- Charges dismissed without evidence of guilt, a guilty plea, or judicially imposed conditions qualify as “otherwise dismissed” and are presumptively eligible for expungement.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly expands access to expungement for defendants negotiating plea agreements. Many plea agreements involve the prosecution agreeing to nolle pros or dismiss multiple charges in exchange for guilty pleas to others. Under prior uncertainty, defendants could face barriers to expunging the dismissed charges simply because they pleaded guilty to related offenses. This decision forecloses that interpretation and holds that each charge’s eligibility for expungement stands independently.
The ruling has practical implications for employment, housing, and professional licensing, as expungement removes these records from public view. For law enforcement and prosecutors, the decision clarifies that statutory language controls—expungement statutes cannot be narrowed by policy preferences or arguments about a defendant’s overall conduct. The decision reinforces Virginia courts’ commitment to plain-language statutory interpretation in the expungement context.