Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Brantley, 96-80490. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20190924b32 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN , Magistrate Judge . In 1996, Defendant Sherry Lynn Smith, who was then known as Sherry Brantley, pled guilty and was sentenced before Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman on a misdemeanor charge. In August of 1997, she pled guilty to and was sentenced on a supervised release violation. Almost twenty years had passed when, on February 22, 2016, Defendant filed a letter request (which I construe as a motion) for expungement of her conviction. The Defendant states that hav
More

ORDER

In 1996, Defendant Sherry Lynn Smith, who was then known as Sherry Brantley, pled guilty and was sentenced before Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman on a misdemeanor charge. In August of 1997, she pled guilty to and was sentenced on a supervised release violation.

Almost twenty years had passed when, on February 22, 2016, Defendant filed a letter request (which I construe as a motion) for expungement of her conviction. The Defendant states that having the misdemeanor conviction on her record is preventing her from bettering herself. See ECF No. 25.

In United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2010), the Sixth Circuit held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over motions to expunge criminal records. Id. at 873-875. However, in United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2014), the Court recognized that federal courts have ancillary jurisdiction to consider expungement motions that raise constitutional challenges, such as a claim of an unconstitutional conviction or an illegal arrest. Id. at 915 (citing United States v. Cary, 602 F.3d 738, 739 (6th Cir. 2010)).

In this case, the Defendant does not raise any constitutional issues; rather, she seeks expungement because her misdemeanor record is interfering with opportunities that might otherwise be available. That is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

I take Ms. Smith at her word that she has stayed out of trouble and moved forward toward a better life, and I commend and congratulate her for doing so. Unfortunately, her remedy does not lie in this Court.

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Defendant's motion for expungement [ECF No. 25] for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer