PEOPLE OF MI V TIMOTHY ANDREW VANHECK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
July 16, 2002
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230042
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 79-024200-FC
TIMOTHY ANDREW VAN HECK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
September 13, 2002
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Bandstra and Hoekstra, JJ.
WILDER, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that the trial court ignored the fact that defendant had received a
full and unconditional pardon from his Connecticut convictions and found that defendant was
precluded from seeking relief under the expungement act. I disagree with this interpretation of
the trial court's ruling. The trial court noted, correctly in my view, that had defendant's five
misdemeanor convictions occurred in Michigan he would be ineligible for relief. However,
ineligibility was not the basis for the trial court's ruling on defendant's motion. Rather, the trial
court found:
Then the question becomes does it make sense to grant him relief because
of the fact that the misdemeanors were in another state, irrespective of how the
other state deals with erasures, set asides, expungements, pardons, whatever you
want to call it.
And it seems to me that that's [sic] kind of quirky position that the
petitioner is placed in, and I have some question as to whether he should be
granted relief where his petition is clearly in violation of the spirit, if not the
letter, of the Michigan statute given the fact that he would not be entitled to relief
had all of the convictions occurred in Michigan.
I think, that being the case, I am inclined to conclude that, in the exercise
of the Court's discretion, the petition to set aside should be denied because it
seems to me it would be inappropriate to grant a petition in a situation where the
-1-
spirit of Michigan law, if not a specific letter, would foreclose the relief.
[Emphasis added.]
MCL 780.621(9) provides:
If the court determines that the circumstances and behavior of the
applicant from the date of the applicant's conviction to the filing of the application
warrant setting aside the conviction and that setting aside the conviction is
consistent with the public welfare, the court may enter an order setting aside the
conviction. The setting aside of a conviction under this act is a privilege and
conditional and is not a right. [Emphasis added.]
I would find that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion to determine that while
defendant's motion to set aside his conviction met the requirements of MCL 780.621(4), and that
therefore defendant was eligible to have his conviction expunged under the statute, the spirit of
the law and the specific circumstances presented here did not support granting defendant the
privilege of having his prior conviction set aside as permitted by the statute. Accordingly, I
would affirm the trial court's order.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
