As used in this subchapter, “sealing” means the procedure and effect as defined in the Comprehensive Criminal Record Sealing Act of 2013, § 16-90-1401 et seq.
Amendments.
The 2011 amendment rewrote the section.
The 2013 amendment substituted “sealing” for “expungement” and “the Comprehensive Criminal Record Sealing Act of 2013, § 16-90-1401 et seq.” for “§ 16-90-901(a)”.
Case Notes
In General.
Police captain's obedience of the subpoena to furnish plaintiff's criminal record was legally reasonable where it clearly would have been a violation of law for him to refuse to honor the subpoena, and it was equally clear that judicial officials were entitled to examine the expunged records. Morton v. City of Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180 (8th Cir. 1991).
Cited:
Morton v. City of Little Rock, 728 F. Supp. 543 (E.D. Ark. 1989); Doe v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 357 Ark. 413, 182 S.W.3d 107 (2004).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Arnold v. State
Arnold v. State (2011) ark · cites it 16דAppellant subsequently filed new petitions to seal the records of both convictions based on her assertion that she had been sentenced under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-105(a)(l) and Arkansas |2Code Annotated sections 16-93-301 to -303 (Repl.2006). Along with these…”
State v. Warren (2001) ark · cites it 8דThis disposition by the Cross County Circuit Court was subject to the expungement provisions of Act 346 of 1975, a first-offender statute later codified in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-301 et seq. (1987).”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Regions Bank Trust Department (2002) ark · cites it 4דOn July 6, 2000, the Yell County Circuit Court entered an order pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16-93-301 (Supp.2001), expunging her record, finding that she had "satisfactorily complied with the orders of this court, and that the petition to expunge and seal should be granted.”
State v. Tejeda-Acosta (2013) ark · cites it 2דAt a hearing, the circuit court accepted the guilty pleas and imposed the State’s recommended sentence of 120 days’ imprisonment in the Benton County jail with credit for time served of 233 days and to probation for 96 months as allowed for first offenders in Act 346 of 1975,…”
State v. Ross (2001) ark · cites it 2דUnder Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-301 (1987) (the First Offender statute), the Conway County Circuit Court sealed Ross’s case.”
State v. Webb (2008) ark · cites it 2דAct 346 of 1975, known as the First Offenders Act, is codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-93-301 to -305 (Repl.”
Baker v. State (1992) ark · cites it 4דFor his second and final point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to consider probation or some form of suspended imposition of sentence of his prison term under Act 346 of 1975, which is codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-93-301 to -303 (1987).”
Turley v. State (2013) arkctapp · cites it 7דHe was placed on six years’ probation 1 pursuant to Act 346 of 1975 (codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-93-301 to -303), which authorizes a trial court to defer proceedings, place a first-time offender on probation, and then dismiss the case and expunge the record at the…”
Shelton v. State (1994) arkctapp · cites it 2דThe judge noted that appellant was not sentenced under Act 346 of 1975, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-301 through 303. Ark.”
Davidson v. State (2005) ark · cites it 4ד[5] This portion of Act 346 was codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 16-93-301 (1987). [6] Section 5 was codified at Ark.”
Turley v. State (2013) arkctapp“He was placed on six years’ probation 1 pursuant to Act 346 of 1975 (codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-93-301 to -303), which authorizes a trial court to defer proceedings, place a first-time offender on probation, and then dismiss the case and expunge the record at the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.