Vaidik, J.
Based upon the new law, Taylor filed a petition to expunge his Class A misdemeanor conviction under Indiana Code section 35-38-9-2. Appellant’s App. p. 8-10. The State filed a response in which it agreed that Taylor met the requirements of Section 35-38-9-2 and was entitled to expungement. Id. at 18. The trial court held a hearing in which the victim of Taylor’s sexual misconduct provided a statement. The trial court summarized the victim’s statement as follows:
She was 15 years old when the Defendant committed the crime against her. She is 25 years old now. She was quiet, serious and dignified. The court finds her credible. She said that she still suffers the effects of what the Defendant did. She believes that the punishment should fit the crime. She does not think it is right that the Defendant’s crime should be expunged.
Id. at 7. When Taylor filed his petition, Indiana Code section 35-38-9-9(d) (Supp. 2013) provided, “[a] victim of the offense for which expungement is sought may submit an oral or written statement in support of or in opposition to the petition at the time of the hearing. The court shall consider the victim’s statement before making its determination.” 1[1 As explained later in this opinion, subsection (d) has since been amended, and the final sentence is no longer contained in the amended version.]
Although Taylor’s petition met all of the statutory requirements for seeking expungement under Section 35-38-9-2, the trial court denied expungement based upon the language of Section 35-38-9-9(d). The trial court concluded it had discretion to deny the petition even though Taylor met all of the requirements in Section 35-38-9-2 because Section 35-38-9-9(d) requires the trial court to consider the victim’s statement. To conclude otherwise, it reasoned, “would be to conclude that section 9 of the statute . . . has no legal purpose. This we cannot presume.” Id. at 7.
. . . .
The interpretation of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-2 is an issue of first impression. It is well settled that the use of the word “shall” is construed as “mandatory language creating a statutory right to a particular outcome after certain conditions are met.” Alden v. State, 983 N.E.2d 186, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In contrast, “[t]he word ‘may’ shows an intent by the legislature to give trial courts the discretion to grant or deny a petition, even if all the statutory requirements have been met . . . .” Id.
We agree with Taylor that Section 35-38-9-2(d) unambiguously requires expungement when all of the statutory requirements are satisfied. Section 35-38-9-2(d) states that the trial court “shall order” the conviction records expunged when all statutory requirements are met. Had the legislature intended the expungement of conviction records under Section 35-38-9-2(d) to be discretionary, it would have used the word “may” instead of the word “shall.”
Further evidence that the legislature intended the grant of expungement to be non-discretionary can be found by looking to other portions of Indiana Code chapter 35-38-9. For example, when Taylor filed his petition, Indiana Code section 35-38-9-4(e) (Supp. 2013), which applies to felonies other than those specifically listed, stated that if the court finds that the statutory requirements are satisfied by clear and convincing evidence “the court may order the conviction records . . . marked as expunged . . . .” (emphasis added). The legislature’s decision to use “may” instead of “shall” as it did in Section 35-38-9-4(e) indicated that it intended to give trial courts discretion not to grant expungement even when all of the statutory requirements were satisfied under that particular section.
The State responds by arguing that finding that the trial court does not have discretion over whether to grant expungement would render the statutory language in Section 35-38-9-9(d) meaningless. Former Section 35-38-9-9(d) stated that “[a] victim of the offense for which expungement is sought may submit an oral or written statement in support of or in opposition to the petition at the time of the hearing. The court shall consider the victim’s statement before making its determination.”
However, our decision does not render former Section 35-38-9-9(d) meaningless. Section 35-38-9-9(d) applied to all provisions in Chapter 9. Within Chapter 9, there were other statutory provisions that gave the trial court discretion in deciding whether to grant expungement. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 35-38-9-4 (felonies not excluded under subsection (b)); Ind. Code § 35-38-9-5 (elected officials or persons convicted of a felony resulting in serious bodily injury to another person). Because Section 35-38-9-9(d) also applied to Sections 35-38-9-4 and 35-38-9-5, a trial court in those instances would have been required to consider a victim’s statement before granting expungement. Therefore, our interpretation does not render Indiana Code section 35-38-9-9(d) meaningless because it required victim’s statements for discretionary expungements.
Further evidence of the legislative intent behind Indiana Code chapter 35-38-9 can be found by examining the recent changes made to it by the legislature in P.L. 181-2014.2 [2 The amendments became effective March 26, 2014. While not directly applicable to this appeal, the amendments give us further information about the legislature’s intent behind Chapter 35-38-9.] Most notably, it amends Section 35-38-9-9(d) in the following way:
(d) A victim of the offense for which expungement is sought may submit an oral or written statement in support of or in opposition to the petition at the time of the hearing. The court shall consider the victim’s statement before making its determination.
P.L. 181-2014. Effective March 26, 2014, even in instances where the trial court has discretion over whether to grant a petition for expungement, it is no longer required to consider the victim’s statement before making its determination. We believe that this is further evidence that the legislature did not intend that a victim’s statement given pursuant to former Section 35-38-9-9(d) could be used by a trial court to deny a petition for expungement under Section 35-38-9-2 when all of the requirements for the petition are met. [Footnote omitted.]
. . . The legislature intended to give individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes a second chance by not experiencing many of the stigmas associated with a criminal conviction—especially where an individual has completed the requirements established by the trial court and has since been a law-abiding citizen. Our interpretation of the statute in its current form supports this policy objective.
We conclude that Section 35-38-9-2(d) unambiguously requires expungement when all of its requirements are met. Furthermore, Section 35-38-9-2(d) can be construed harmoniously with former Section 35-38-9-9(d) because it applied to the entirety of Chapter 35-38-9. Because Taylor met all of the conditions precedent to expungement, the trial court did not have discretion to deny his petition for expungement under Section 35-38-9-2(d).
RILEY, J., and MAY, J., concur.