APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable David C. Bonfiglio, Judge. Cause No. 20D06-1307-MI-134.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ELIZABETH A. BELLIN, Elkhart, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana; HENRY A. FLORES, JR., Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
MATHIAS, Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
Craig Alvey (" Alvey" ) appeals the Elkhart Superior Court's denial of his petition to expunge the records of his conviction. On appeal, Alvey claims that the trial court erred in concluding that Alvey could not have the records of his conviction expunged because Alvey had violated the terms of his probation.
Facts and Procedural History
On January 24, 2007, Alvey pleaded guilty to Class D felony possession of cocaine and was sentenced to eighteen months, all suspended to probation. On July 18, 2007, Alvey admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the trial court sentenced him to " 20 days to be served 5 COWP Weekends." Appellant's App. p. 17. On February 22, 2008, Alvey again admitted to violating the terms of his probation. This time, the trial court imposed the balance of Alvey's previously-suspended sentence and recommended that it be served in Community Corrections. Alvey was accepted into the Community Corrections program, where he served the remainder of his sentence. Alvey completed his sentence on September 18, 2008. On September 12, 2012, Alvey successfully petitioned to have his Class D felony conviction reduced to a Class A misdemeanor.
On July 2, 2013, Alvey filed a petition to expunge the records of his Class A misdemeanor conviction. Alvey claimed that he had successfully completed his sentence and was therefore eligible for expungement. The State disagreed and noted that Alvey had twice admitted to violating the terms of his probation. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Alvey's petition on October 1, 2013. Alvey now appeals.
Standard of Review
Here, the parties do not dispute the operative facts and argue only whether the relevant expungement statute is applicable to these facts. Thus, the question before us is one of statutory ...