Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073 (2026)

Certain felony convictions may be vacated and the records expunged --

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Application -- Hearing -- Vacating conviction without a hearing -- Order to vacate and expunge -- Application form -- Fees -- Retroactivity. (1) Any person who has been: (a) Convicted of a Class D felony violation of KRS 17.175, 186.990, 194A.505, 194B.505, 217.181, 217.207, 217.208, 218A.140, 218A.1415, 218A.1416, 218A.1417, 218A.1418, 218A.1423, 218A.1439, 218A.282, 218A.284, 218A.286, 218A.320, 218A.322, 218A.324, 218A.500, 244.165, 286.11-057, 304.47-025, 324.990, 365.241, 434.155, 434.675, 434.850, 434.872, 511.040, 512.020, 514.030, 514.040, 514.050, 514.060, 514.065, 514.070, 514.080, 514.090, 514.100, 514.110, 514.120, 514.140, 514.150, 514.160, 516.030, 516.060, 516.090, 516.108, 517.120, 518.040, 522.040, 524.100, 525.113, 526.020, 526.030, 528.020, 528.040, 528.050, 530.010, or 530.050; (b) Convicted of a series of Class D felony violations of one (1) or more statutes enumerated in paragraph (a) of this subsection arising from a single incident; (c) Granted a full pardon; or (d) Convicted of a Class D felony, or an offense prior to January 1, 1975 which was punishable by not more than five (5) years' incarceration, which was not a violation of KRS 189A.010, 508.032, or 519.055, abuse of public office, a sex offense, or an offense committed against a child, and did not result in serious bodily injury or death; or of multiple felony offenses eligible under this paragraph; may file with the court in which he or she was convicted an application to have the judgment vacated. The application shall be filed as a motion in the original criminal case. The person shall be informed of the right at the time of adjudication. (2) (a) A verified application to have the judgment vacated under this section shall be filed no sooner than five (5) years after the completion of the person's sentence, or five (5) years after the successful completion of the person's probation or parole, whichever occurs later. (b) Upon the payment of the filing fee and the filing of the application, the Circuit Court clerk shall serve a notice of filing upon the office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case and the county attorney of the county where the judgment was entered. The office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case shall file a response within sixty (60) days after being served with the notice of filing. That time period may be extended for good cause, but the hearing on the application to vacate the judgment shall occur no later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the filing of the application. The inability to determine the location of the crime victim shall constitute good cause for an extension of time. No hearing upon the merits of the application shall be scheduled until the Commonwealth's response has been filed, or if no response is received, no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the filing of the application. (c) In any case in which the Commonwealth objects that the application is grossly incomplete, the court shall order the person or agency originating the application to supplement the application. (3) Upon the filing of the Commonwealth's response to an application, or if no response is received, no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the filing of the application, the court shall set a date for a hearing and the Circuit Court clerk shall notify the office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case. The office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case shall notify the victim of the crime, if there was an identified victim. The Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney shall be authorized to obtain without payment of any fee information from the Transportation Cabinet regarding the crime victim's address on file regarding any vehicle operator's license issued to that person. (4) (a) In an application pursuant to subsection (1)(d) of this section, upon the filing of the Commonwealth's response objecting to the vacating of a judgment and expungement of a record, the court shall schedule a hearing within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Commonwealth's response. The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons for believing a denial of the application is justified. At the hearing at which the applicant or his or her attorney must be present, the applicant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. Vacating the judgment and expunging the record is consistent with the welfare and safety of the public; 2. The action is supported by his or her behavior since the conviction or convictions, as evidenced that he or she has been active in rehabilitative activities in prison and is living a law-abiding life since release; 3. The vacation and expungement is warranted by the interests of justice; and 4. Any other matter deemed appropriate or necessary by the court to make a determination regarding the petition for expungement is met. (b) At the hearing, the applicant may testify as to the specific adverse consequences he or she may be subject to if the application is denied. The court may hear testimony of witnesses and any other matter the court deems proper and relevant to its determination regarding the application. The Commonwealth may present proof of any extraordinary circumstances that exist to deny the application. A victim of any offense listed in the application shall have an opportunity to be heard at any hearing held under this section. (c) If the court determines that circumstances warrant vacation and expungement and that the harm otherwise resulting to the applicant clearly outweighs the public interest in the criminal history record information being publicly available, then the original conviction or convictions shall be vacated and the records shall be expunged. The order of expungement shall not preclude a prosecutor's office from retaining a nonpublic record for law enforcement purposes only. (5) The court may order the judgment vacated, and if the judgment is vacated the court shall dismiss with prejudice any charges which are eligible for expungement under subsection (1) of this section or KRS 431.076 or 431.078, and, upon full payment of the fee in subsection (11) of this section, order expunged all records in the custody of the court and any records in the custody of any other agency or official, including law enforcement records, if the court finds that: (a) The person had not in the five (5) years prior to the filing of the application to have the judgment vacated been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor; (b) No proceeding concerning a felony or misdemeanor is pending or being instituted against the person; and (c) For an application pursuant to subsection (1)(d) of this section, the person has been rehabilitated and poses no significant threat of recidivism. (6) If the court has received a response from the office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case stating no objection to the application to have the judgment vacated, or if one hundred twenty (120) days have elapsed since the filing of the application and no response has been received from the victim or the office of the Commonwealth's attorney or county attorney that prosecuted the case, the court may, without a hearing, vacate the judgment in the manner established in subsection (5) of this section. (7) Upon entry of an order vacating and expunging a conviction, the original conviction shall be vacated and, upon full payment of the fee in subsection (11) of this section, the record shall be expunged. The court and other agencies shall cause records to be deleted or removed from their computer systems so that the matter shall not appear on official state-performed background checks. The court and other agencies shall reply to any inquiry that no record exists on the matter. The person whose record is expunged shall not have to disclose the fact of the record or any matter relating thereto on an application for employment, credit, or other type of application. If the person is not prohibited from voting for any other reason, the person's ability to vote shall be restored and the person may register to vote. (8) An order vacating a conviction under this section shall not extend or revive an expired statute of limitations, shall not constitute a finding of legal error regarding the proceedings leading to or resulting in the conviction, shall not nullify any findings of fact or conclusions of law made by the trial court or any appellate court regarding the conviction, and shall not constitute a finding of innocence regarding the conviction. (9) The Administrative Office of the Courts shall establish a form application to be used in filing an application to have judgment vacated and records expunged. (10) The filing fee for an application to have judgment vacated and records expunged shall be fifty dollars ($50), which shall be deposited into a trust and agency account for deputy clerks and shall not be refundable. (11) (a) Upon the issuance of an order vacating and expunging a conviction pursuant to this section, the applicant shall be charged an expungement fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), which may be payable by an installment plan in accordance with KRS 534.020. (b) When the order is issued, the court shall set a date, no sooner than eighteen (18) months after the date of the order, by which the defendant must comply with the installment payment plan. The applicant shall be given notice of the total amount due, the payment frequency, and the date by which all payments must be made. The notice shall state that the expungement cannot be completed until full payment is received, and that if the applicant has not completed the installment payment plan by the scheduled date, he or she shall appear on that date to show good cause as to why he or she is unable to satisfy the obligations. Notwithstanding provisions of KRS 534.020 to the contrary, no applicant shall be ordered to jail for failure to complete an installment plan ordered pursuant to this section. (c) The revenues and interest from the expungement fee shall be deposited in the expungement fund created in KRS 431.0795. (12) This section shall be retroactive. Effective: June 29, 2023 History: Amended 2023 Ky. Acts ch. 87, sec. 1, effective June 29, 2023. -- Amended 2019 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 1, effective June 27, 2019. -- Created 2016 Ky. Acts ch. 94, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2016.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Johnetta Carr v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty., Ky., 37 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2022).
Johnetta Carr v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty., Ky., 37 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2022). “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann § 431.073(1)(c); Bedford v.”
Com. of Ky. v. Ford, 543 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “The expungement statute, KRS 431.073, provides in pertinent part as follows: Any person who has been convicted of a Class D felony violation of KRS 17.”
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 22× “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 21× “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Rebecca Dawn Hampton (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 20× “More particularly, the Commonwealth believes that a proper interpretation of KRS 431.073(1)(d) would exclude expungement of Hampton’s 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 15× “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. -3- The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the fifteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 15× “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 15× “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
Donald G. Adams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019). · cites it 9× “2 KRS 431.073 was enacted as a result and took effect on July 15, 2016.”
Kristen Marie O'Brien v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “KRS 431.073 governs expungement of certain felony convictions.”
Shawn C. Wofford v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “After obtaining an “Expungement Eligibility Certification Notice,” and in reliance on KRS 431.073, Wofford submitted to the circuit court a Form AOC 496.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(1) — 11 cases
Com. of Ky. v. Ford, 543 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). “The expungement statute, KRS 431.073, provides in pertinent part as follows: Any person who has been convicted of a Class D felony violation of KRS 17.”
Donald G. Adams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019). “2 KRS 431.073 was enacted as a result and took effect on July 15, 2016.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. -3- The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the fifteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(1)(a) — 3 cases
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Rebecca Dawn Hampton (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “More particularly, the Commonwealth believes that a proper interpretation of KRS 431.073(1)(d) would exclude expungement of Hampton’s 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.”
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(1)(b) — 1 case
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(1)(c) — 3 cases
Johnetta Carr v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty., Ky., 37 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2022). “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann § 431.073(1)(c); Bedford v.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(1)(d) — 4 cases
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Rebecca Dawn Hampton (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “More particularly, the Commonwealth believes that a proper interpretation of KRS 431.073(1)(d) would exclude expungement of Hampton’s 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
Kristen Marie O'Brien v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). “KRS 431.073 governs expungement of certain felony convictions.”
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(10) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(11)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(12) — 1 case
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(2) — 1 case
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(2)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(4) — 3 cases
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Rebecca Dawn Hampton (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “More particularly, the Commonwealth believes that a proper interpretation of KRS 431.073(1)(d) would exclude expungement of Hampton’s 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 218A.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(4)(a) — 3 cases
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
Southerland v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.3d 165 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).
Eric Lisle Farwick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2025). “On May 23, 2019, the Trial Court denied the application, concluding that KRS 431.073 does not apply to multiple felonies that do not arise from a single incident.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(4)(c) — 2 cases
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(5) — 7 cases
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. -3- The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the fifteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cassandra Richardson (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “The court determined that expungement was proper per KRS 431.073. This appeal follows. The Commonwealth contends that the circuit court committed reversible error by expunging the sixteen counts that were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement.”
Blake P. Walker v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2024). “Ultimately, the court -3- concluded expungement was in its sound discretion and, by order entered March 4, 2022, the circuit court denied Walker’s application.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(5)(a) — 3 cases
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(5)(c) — 1 case
Aaron Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2021). “02 appeal became final, Campbell filed an application under KRS 431.073 seeking expungement of the third-degree burglary conviction dating from 2010.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 431.073(6) — 1 case
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.