{
  "id": 1885544,
  "name": "Kenneth R. IRVIN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Irvin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-02-26",
  "docket_number": "CR 90-14",
  "first_page": "416",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 Ark. 416"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "784 S.W.2d 763"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878617
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 F.2d 11",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1014993
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/545/0011-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "565 F.2d 1279",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        898419
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/565/1279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "618 F.2d 1119",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1380462
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/618/1119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 5005",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-73-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "618 F.2d 1119",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1380462
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/618/1119-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 5752,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.898,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7876238156279335e-07,
      "percentile": 0.896849005482559
    },
    "sha256": "c4959944c201185a7faa62b22b3099a0487c42a83f5c7e6cb47c4a2ffc109ff9",
    "simhash": "1:e3baf5d45c817e5c",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Holt, C.J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Kenneth R. IRVIN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nIn July 1982, appellant pleaded guilty to a felony and was sentenced to imprisonment for five (5) years under the Youthful Offender Alternative Service Act of 1975. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 43-2339 to -2349 (Supp. 1982). Under the Act appellant was immediately eligible for parole. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2342(c). Upon completion of his five-year sentence he was entitled to have the record of conviction expunged. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2344. Appellant completed his sentence without incident. There is no showing whether the record was in fact expunged.\nIn October 1987, appellant possessed a firearm. He was subsequently charged and convicted in the case at bar of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-73-103 (Supp. 1989). We reverse and hold that even though the appellant\u2019s record may not have been actually expunged, his prior sentence under the Youthful Offender Act cannot be used as the underlying felony in a later prosecution for felon in possession of a firearm.\nThe Youthful Offender Alternative Service Act of 197 5 provides that upon completion of the sentence, \u201cthe Commissioner [of the Department of Correction] shall direct that the record of the eligible offender be expunged . . . .\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2344. Expunged means an entry upon judicial and law enforcement records \u201csignifying that the defendant was completely exonerated of any criminal purpose and said disposition shall not affect any civil right or liberties of said defendant.\u201d It does not mean the physical destruction of the records. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2340(g).\nThe foregoing language leaves little room for doubt about our decision in this case. However, we are additionally persuaded by the public policy underlying the Youthful Offender Act. That policy is to remove the stigma of youthful indiscretions, and to give a youthful offender a second chance to a life free of a criminal record.\nThe federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 5005 to -5026 (1976), is similar to our Youthful Offender Act of 1975. While federal decisions do not mandate how we decide state issues, we note that the three (3) Circuit Courts of Appeal which have construed the federal act have construed that act the same as we now construe our act. United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Purgason, 565 F.2d 1279 (4th Cir. 1977); United States v. Fryer, 545 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1976).\nThe State argues that it produced the judgment of conviction, and even though it may have been subject to expungement, it was up to the appellant to show actual expungement. Such an argument disregards the language of the Act. The 1982 judgment of conviction offered in evidence by the State to establish the original conviction revealed that appellant was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act. Under the language of the Act the young offender does not have to petition for expungement. Instead, it is a ministerial duty to be completed by the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. The Act provides that the \u201cCommissioner shall direct that the record of the eligible offer be expunged. . . .\u201d Even if the Commissioner had failed to perform his ministerial duty, we would not subject a citizen to incarceration solely because a State official did not perform a ministerial act.\nFurther, proof of a prior felony is an element of the crime of felon in possession of a firearm and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the State. To require an accused to prove expungement would be to require an affirmative defense when none is required by the statute. See United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1980).\nThe State additionally argues that this case is governed by Gosnell v. State, 284 Ark. 299, 681 S.W.2d 385 (1984). In Gosnell, we held that an expunged conviction can be used to enhance the sentence of an habitual offender. We distinguish Gosnell because in that case the expunged conviction was not used as an element of the crime. Here, the State used the expunged conviction as an element of the crime.\nFinally, the State argues that the commentary to the felon in possession statute, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-73-103, dictates affirmance. The argument is without merit. The commentary deals with suspension and probation, not with expungement.\nReversed and remanded.\nHolt, C.J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice,\nconcurring. I concur and make the following observation and comment:\nEven though the Youthful Offender Alternative Service Act of 1975 provided that upon completion of the sentence, the Director (of the Department of Correction) \u201cshall direct that the record of the eligible offender be expunged ....,\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2344 (Supp. 1982), the state asserts that Irvin had a duty to prove that his record has been, in fact, expunged. Such an argument defies common sense and good reason.\nAs the court in United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1980), stated: to require a defendant \u201cto rebut evidence of his conviction by producing a certificate,\u201d whose issuance is controlled by the government, . . . would be \u201canalogous to placing the burden upon a person never before convicted the burden of proving his clear record.\u201d\nUpon completion of his five year sentence, Irvin was entitled to have his conviction expunged and it was the state\u2019s duty and responsibility by statute to do so. Such an oversight on the part of the state is inexcusable.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William C. McArthur, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Joseph V. Svoboda, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kenneth R. IRVIN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 90-14\n784 S.W.2d 763\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 26, 1990\n[Rehearing denied April 2, 1990.]\nWilliam C. McArthur, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Joseph V. Svoboda, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.\nPrice, J., not participating."
  },
  "file_name": "0416-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 451
}