STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GEORGE LEWIS (2026)

I would grant expungement without the need for an additional hearing. However, insofar as a new hearing is being ordered, I concur with the per curiam order that the applicant is not required to produce the additional document listed in La. C.Cr.P. art. 984 and that the applicant shall not be required to pay another expungement fee in connection with this remand order.

Expungement law was updated in 2014 with the goal of “balancing the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies and the desire to afford employment opportunities to all Louisiana citizens․” La. C.Cr.P. art. 971. There is no dispute that the applicant's record, while severe, is subject to expungement under La. C.Cr. P. art. 978, as ten years have passed since his release.

Certain agencies are required to be served by the clerk of court: (1) the district attorney (2) the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information, and (3) the arresting law environment agency. These agencies may object to the expungement within 60 days. If they do not, the applicant may waive the contradictory hearing, and the court “shall grant the motion to expunge the record if the court determines that the mover is entitled to the expungement in accordance with law.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 980(F).

The law sets certain specific requirements for motions for expungements. If these forms are not followed, there is no expungement. Courts are not free to require anything more or less. La. C.Cr.P. art. 986 and 989. The first general attachment is a certification letter from the district attorney which verifies that, to his knowledge, the applicant has had no convictions during the ten-year period immediately preceding the motion, and there are no pending charges under a bill of information or indictment. La. C.Cr.P. art. 978 (A)(2). The next general proof requirements are found in the official “form” the legislature requires to be filled out. It lists certain items that are relevant for different types of expungements. La. C.Cr.P. art. 989. Thus, the second attachment the applicant needed was a criminal background check from the State Police or the Parish sheriff dated within 60 days of the motion, which is required of all expungement applicants. The third is the Bill of Information. And the fourth is the minute entry showing the final disposition of the case. A paragraph at the end of the form shows that if a defendant attaches an “Affidavit of No Opposition” by each agency named in the form (here that would be the arresting law enforcing agency, the District Attorney's office (D.A.), and the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information), then the defendant can move for the motion to be granted ex parte. It does not necessarily require any “No Opposition” attachments from these offices.

The other items listed in the check list are not relevant to the applicant in this matter, though the D.A.’s letter addressed most of them anyway.¹ Most importantly of these is what the court of appeal attempted to require of the applicant – “the proof from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, office of motor vehicles․” This is required only for “Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated Convictions.” It is in the title of the statute and in large, all-caps, bold letters in the forms. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 984 and 989. Thus, the court of appeal certainly erred in making this a requirement.

The lower court also noted that the record does not reflect that either the District Attorney, the State Police, or the New Orleans Police Department were served. However, the law requires that they be served by the clerk of court. La. C.Cr.P. art. 979. It does not require that the applicant produce the proof that they were served. Further, the D.A. had to have been served because the District Attorney was there for the contradictory hearing and noted that the State had no objection to the expungement.

Attached to his writ application, the applicant has the following required documents: (1) The Bill of Information (Exhibit 4), (2) The D.A.’s certification letter (Exhibit 7), (3) The background check (Exhibit 8), and (4) The minute entry showing final disposition (Exhibit 5). He also included the affidavit of no opposition from the Louisiana Department of Public Safety (Office of State Police and Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information) (Exhibit 11) (hereinafter, State Police). Thus, neither the local D.A. nor the State have lodged any objection to the expungement in this matter. While the court of appeal noted that the applicant had not attached these documents to his motion, I am skeptical of their conclusion given the erroneous requirement noted above and the fact that the letter from the D.A. is dated prior to the hearing, as is the background check. The only document dated after that is the LDPS affidavit, which is dated January 29, 2026. This document is not required for an expungement, but that it was not attached means a contradictory hearing may be required, which is what was being held the day the motion was denied. Even if it had not been sent, with the passage of 60 days without objection, the contradictory hearing could have still been waived. La. C.Cr.P. art. 980 (F).

Thus, there is no legal basis for denying this motion for expungement.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Those are: (1) the D.A.’s fee waiver letter, (2) D.A. letter that charges were refused (3) D.A. letter that applicant did not participate in a pretrial diversion program, (3) A copy of the first offender pardon, (4) a copy of the order waiving the sex offender registration and notification requirements, and (5) a copy of the court order determination of factual innocence and order of compensation for a wrongful conviction. However, the letter attached actually includes a notice that the Defendant did not participate in a pre-trial diversion program and that the D.A. refused a charge in his case.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs in part, dissents in part and assigns reasons.