IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT PETITION OF R.M.M.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT

PETITION OF R.M.M.

________________________________________________

Submitted May 5, 2015 Decided May 15, 2015

Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. 2014-296.

Trautmann & Associates, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant R.M.M. (Gregg D. Trautmann, on the brief).

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Ian D. Brater, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel; Keri-Leigh Schaefer, Legal Assistant, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

R.M.M.1 appeals the denial of his petition for expungement of arrest records regarding a disorderly persons offense. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge John T. Mullaney in his cogent written decision.

The circumstances are uncomplicated. On August 2, 2013, R.M.M. was charged with consumption of alcoholic beverages while under the legal age, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15, a disorderly persons offense. On November 25, 2013, R.M.M. appeared before a municipal judge and pleaded guilty to violating a municipal ordinance which prohibited "obstructing passage" and "disorderly assemblage." A $1000 fine and court costs were imposed.

Approximately four months later, R.M.M. filed a petition in the Law Division seeking expungement of the records of his arrest for the disorderly persons offense. Judge Mullaney conducted a hearing on June 5, 2014, and denied the petition by order and written decision entered on June 6, 2014; he found that expungement was inappropriate because the disorderly persons charge was never dismissed in municipal court and because the ordinance conviction is "inextricably intertwined" with the disorderly persons charge. Accordingly, the judge concluded that there could be no expungement of records regarding the disorderly persons charge until there could be expungement regarding the ordinance violation.

Expungement of criminal records is available only if authorized by statute. There is neither a constitutional nor common law right to such relief. G.P.B., supra, 436 N.J. Super. at 50. The petitioner must demonstrate the statutory requirements have been satisfied. In re P.H., 436 N.J. Super. 427, 434 (App. Div. 2014); In re G.R., 395 N.J. Super. 428, 431 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 193 N.J. 275 (2007). We agree with Judge Mullaney that R.M.M. failed to demonstrate an entitlement to expungement.

Our Legislature has comprehensively outlined the parameters for expungement of criminal records, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6 permits expungement of records pertaining to a disorderly persons offense if the "proceedings were dismissed, or [the defendant] was acquitted, or . . . discharged without a conviction or finding of guilt." A court, however, must deny an expungement petition where the "acquittal, discharge or dismissal of charges resulted from a plea bargaining agreement involving the conviction of other charges." N.J.S.A. 2C:52-14(c). Clearly, R.M.M.'s plea of violating the municipal ordinance, for which he had not previously been charged, was entered as the means of avoiding prosecution on the disorderly persons charge. This plea bargain precludes expungement until such time as the ordinance violation itself may, if ever, be expunged. Ibid.
 

Affirmed.

1Even though we affirm the denial of relief, we nevertheless preserve appellant's anonymity. Otherwise it would do him little good to later obtain expungement, when this opinion revealing his identity would still be available on the internet. See In re G.P.B., 436 N.J. Super. 48, 52 n. 4 (App. Div. 2014), certif. granted, __ N.J. __ (Sept. 25, 2014).