In 2001, Angela Michelle Harris pled guilty to a drug possession charge and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. She met all the conditions of her probation and was discharged in 2003.
A few years later in 2010, Harris again received deferred adjudication, this time for evading arrest. She again fulfilled all the terms of her probation to the satisfaction of law enforcement and was discharged the next year.
When Harris went to petition for an order of non-disclosure related to her 2001 drug offense, her request was denied. The court found that because Harris was placed on deferred adjudication again after her first offense, an order of non-disclosure might not serve the “best interests of justice.”
The phrase “best interests of justice” is one that has been used in several different contexts in courts. It’s hard to pin down an exact definition of what “best interests of justice” really means. In one proceeding, hundreds of non-violent protesters arguing for environmental protection had their cases dismissed in the “best interests of justice.” In a Travis County courtroom, there was a DWI defendant who requested to take on a few months of jail time instead of years of probation. The judge denied his request because it was in the “best interests of justice” that the defendant received proper rehabilitation for substance abuse instead of jail time.
In the context of non-disclosure cases, this standard asks the jury to determine whether or not allowing the defendant to hide their criminal record will result in actions that serve the interests of justice. In plain English, it’s a question of “has the defendant been sufficiently rehabilitated from their previous crimes, or will the defendant continue to break the law as a result of having their criminal record hidden?”
Although it’s difficult to objectively define the interests of justice in a given case, the courtroom often looks to precedent from previous cases, and self-evident observations regarding the interests of justice. It was by examining the definition of “best interests of justice” that Angela Harris was able to have the decision on her petition of non-disclosure reversed.
In her initial proceedings, the jury assumed that because Harris had a subsequent crime after her 2001 drug charge, it demonstrated a “lack of rehabilitation,” on the part of the defendant. This trial court never actually had a hearing on whether or not the interests of justice were served, but rather assumed that the petition for non-disclosure was voided because of Harris’ subsequent crime of evading arrest in 2010.
When the decision was appealed, the court found that legal precedent actually allowed Harris to lawfully receive an order of non-disclosure. After a person is placed on deferred adjudication, they must complete their probation and not commit another offense for a certain period of time in order to be eligible for non-disclosure. This period of time varies given the nature of the offense, and the waiting period for Harris’ drug charge was five years. Given that her second offense of evading arrest happened more than five years after her first probation period ended, Harris was in the clear to file a petition of non-disclosure. Precedent trumped the assumptions made in her initial hearings. Harris’ case was reversed in the Court of Appeals, and she was granted her petition of non-disclosure.
Harris’ case, among others, shows the importance of knowing the details of the law. A further examination of the “best interests of justice” helped protect Harris’ rights as a defendant, and ultimately helped her secure an order of non-disclosure. Hundreds of defendants every year are not as fortunate as Harris and forfeit their rights in court when they are actually on the correct side of the law. Call today for a consultation with Easy Expunctions to see whether or not your case truly qualifies for an order of non-disclosure. We want to ensure you are taking advantage of all the privileges that you are qualified for in the courtroom.
