Setting aside a conviction; MCL 780.621(14); People v Rosen; Principle that a court was not permitted to set aside a conviction for a traffic offense; MCL 780.621(3)(d); “Traffic offense”; MCL 780.621a(b); Expungement; MCL 257.732(22)

Holding that the trial court failed to explain how expungement would be contrary to the public welfare, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition and remanded. Defendant, who was 18, pled guilty to manslaughter for operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of 0.092%, running a stop sign, striking an SUV, and injuring the driver and killing the passenger. The trial court sentenced to him to 12 months in jail and 60 months of probation. After completing his sentences, defendant sought expungement of the conviction, petitioning the trial court to set it aside. The trial court denied the petition, finding expungement would be contrary to the public welfare. In a prior appeal, the court denied leave. But the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, remanded. On remand, the court noted that the trial court’s decision suffered from “multiple flaws.” First, it was “not up to the trial court to accept or reject the legislative decision that traffic offenses shall only encompass violations of the Michigan vehicle code and comparable ordinances.” Second, the trial court “improperly focused solely on the nature of the offense, i.e., driving while intoxicated causing loss of life, in denying the petition to set aside defendant’s manslaughter conviction.” Third, and finally, the court found “problematic the trial court’s observation ‘that there should be a record’ of defendant’s involvement in an offense resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle so as to serve ‘public policy.’” It concluded that “there can be no expungement of defendant’s manslaughter conviction with respect to his driving record maintained by the Secretary of State. It will remain intact.” Although the trial court “appeared to acknowledge this fact at the very end of the hearing, [it] failed to give any explanation why maintenance of a record by the Secretary of State reflecting that defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle caused a death was inadequate to satisfy the court’s perceived view of public policy.”