Changes to Marijuana-Related Expungements (Part 22)

by | Mar 17, 2020 | Blog, Criminal Law, Drug Crime, Marijuana, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

  1. N.J.S.2C:52-8 is amended to read as follows:


2C:52-8. Statements to accompany petition.  There shall be attached to a petition for expungement:

a.    A statement with the affidavit or verification that there are no disorderly persons, petty disorderly persons or criminal charges pending against the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition for expungement.
b.    In those instances where the petitioner is seeking the expungement of a criminal conviction pursuant to J.S.2C:52-2, a statement with affidavit or verification that he has never been granted expungement, sealing or similar relief regarding a criminal conviction by any court in this State or other state or by any Federal court. “Sealing” refers to the relief previously granted pursuant to P.L.1973, c.191 (C.2A:85-15 et seq.).
c.    In those instances where a person has received a dismissal of a criminal charge because of acceptance into a supervisory treatment or any other diversion program, a statement with affidavit or verification setting forth the nature of the original charge, the court of disposition and date of disposition.
d.    A statement as to whether the petitioner has legally changed the petitioner’s name, the date of judgment of name change, and the previous legal name. If applicable, the petitioner shall provide a copy of the order for name change.

(cf: P.L.2017, c.244, s.4)

The need for the new requirement regarding legal name changes is obvious and overdue. Language was also removed regarding the “single spree” doctrine concerning the expungement of multiple convictions that occurred with “a comparatively short period of time.” That doctrine was vague and led to inconsistent results. Language referencing multiple expungements only being available of the multiple offenses were contained in the same judgment of conviction was also removed. That requirement also led to inconsistent results that undermined the rationale for expungements. The “single spree” doctrine language was replaced with reference to the recently amended N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2.