Ognum v. State, et al.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C3-96-928

Osmon A. Ognum, f/k/a Billie G. Clay,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota, et al.,

Respondents.

 Filed December 17, 1996

 Affirmed

 Peterson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. T69448964

William P. Kaszynski, First National Bank Building, Suite E-1320, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Appellant)

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondents)

Timothy E. Marx, St. Paul City Attorney, Jill Z. Osterhaus, Deputy City Attorney, Andrea Lynn Miller, Assistant City Attorney, 500 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondents)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Davies, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 PETERSON, Judge

Osmon A. Ognum argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to expunge his criminal record. We affirm.

 FACTS

Appellant Osmon A. Ognum brought a motion to expunge a 1977 misdemeanor conviction for simple assault and numerous arrests from his criminal record. In his supporting affidavit, Ognum said he was seeking expungement because his conviction and arrest record may cause him to be "turned down for prospective employment." Ognum also argued his criminal record had caused the police to harass him.

At the motion hearing, Ognum clarified that he wanted his criminal record expunged because he was applying for a job at the Veteran's Administration. Ognum stated that many job applications ask if the applicant has been convicted of a crime or has an arrest record. Ognum said he felt his record would prevent him from getting a job in the future. Ognum also claimed his criminal record haunted him whenever the police questioned him about a minor matter because they looked up his record, discovered its length, and believed he was a dangerous criminal. Ognum finally argued that his conviction was for an old and minor crime.

The district court denied Ognum's motion without explanation.

 D E C I S I O N

[A]ny expungement not required by statute or by the state and federal constitutions is within the inherent authority and discretion of the trial court.

 State v. P.A.D., 436 N.W.2d 808, 810 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. May 12, 1989). We will not overturn a district court's exercise of discretion absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Kilowatt Org. (TKO), Inc. v. Department of Energy, Planning & Dev., 336 N.W.2d 529, 533 (Minn. 1983).

A court has statutory authority to order expungement of some criminal records under Minn. Stat. § 299C.11 (1994), which requires the return of certain data to an arrested person provided that the criminal proceeding has been resolved in the arrested person's favor and the arrested person has had no felony convictions within the past ten years. See State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Minn. 1981) (interpreting 1980 version of statute). The court also has inherent authority to order expungement. Id. at 358.

Where denial of a constitutional right is not involved the court must decide whether expungement will yield a benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantages to the public from the elimination of the record and the burden on the court in issuing, enforcing and monitoring an expungement order.

 Id.

Ognum argues that applying this balancing test in his case shows his record should have been expunged and that, at the very least, the district court's failure to explain its decision requires the matter to be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See P.A.D., 436 N.W.2d at 809-10 (when district court did not perform balancing test, matter was remanded for further proceedings). But unlike the petitioner in P.A.D., 436 N.W.2d at 809, Ognum failed to submit any evidence upon which the district court could have performed the balancing test or made findings. Ognum submitted no specific evidence showing which jobs he was seeking or that his criminal record had hindered his search. Nor did Ognum produce any specific evidence about the police harassment allegedly caused by his record. Finally, Ognum presented no specific facts concerning his conviction or arrests and did not ask the district court to take judicial notice of these records. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ognum's motion or in failing to explain its decision.

  Affirmed.