AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Christian Andersson sought to expunge his 1984 convictions for commercial burglary, arguing that his criminal record was "inaccurate." Despite his assertion, Andersson acknowledged his conviction and the deferred sentence he received pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-3 (1977) before the 1985 amendment. His petition for expungement was denied by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that his criminal record is "inaccurate" and thus should be expunged.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had the inherent authority to expunge a conviction.
• Whether the petitioner's criminal record being "inaccurate" constitutes a valid basis for expungement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition for expungement.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by Andersson's argument that his criminal record was "inaccurate" as a basis for expungement. The court noted that even if it assumed the district court had the authority to expunge a conviction, Andersson's case did not present extraordinary circumstances warranting expungement. Andersson had acknowledged his conviction and the deferred sentence he received, failing to demonstrate the alleged inaccuracy of his record to the district court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that there was no error in declining to expunge Andersson's criminal record.