29 years ago (1996), N.E.M was convicted as a juvenile for Assault in the Third Degree, Kidnapping in the Second Degree and Rape in the Second Degree (Rape 2).
In 2023, N.E.M. was released from his obligation to register as a kidnapping offender. In 2024, N.E.M. moved to vacate and seal his convictions. However, the RCW 13.50.260(4)(a)(v) statutory requirements for mandatory sealing precluded Rape 2 from qualifying from sealing. Because N.E.M.’s Rape 2 conviction disqualified him from sealing, the Court here held it did not have the discretion to vacate and seal.
The Court here was very empathic to N.E.M.’s pitch that the Court could look at each individual’s circumstance and exercise inherent judicial discretion. However, the same Court was “compelled to disagree” because , in State v Garza, 200 Wa 2d 449, 460, the Washington Supreme Court held “before a trial court grants a motion to vacate and seal under RCW 13.50.260(3), it must confirm the movant meets the criteria to seal” and “must still meet the sealing requirements enumerated in RCW 13.50.260(4)(a),(b) and (c). Rape 2 is a precluded offense from sealing under this status.
N.E.M. requested Division 1 consider that a trial court’s inherent discretion to grant a juvenile offender’s motion to vacate and seal his juvenile records could still happen where the sealing conditions are not met. Due to the Garza decision, N.E.M. is, sadly, out of luck for full relief for actions he took almost three decades ago. There is enough ‘empathic language’ in the opinion that N.E.M. may try his luck with the WA. Supreme Court.