Baker, J.
Sabrina Dada appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition to expunge the records of a 2007 summons for a charge of Class C misdemeanor illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage. The trial court denied Dada’s petition because she had been summonsed rather than arrested. Finding that Dada is entitled to relief, we reverse and remand with instructions to expunge the relevant records.
….
Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 governs the expungement of records related to criminal charges that did not result in a conviction. It applies “only to a person who has been arrested[.]” I.C. 35-38-9-1(a). The trial court reasoned that because Dada was never actually arrested, she is not entitled to the relief she seeks.
We cannot conclude that the legislature intended for this result to be reached, inasmuch as it would offer relief to more problematic offenders and deny relief to more compliant ones. … And indeed, the General Assembly has recognized that the statute as written may lead to unjust results. The statute has been amended to read that it “applies only to a person who has been arrested, charged with an offense, or alleged to be a delinquent child,” I.C. 35-38-9-1(a) (effective date of July 1, 2015) (emphasis added).
….
As in J.B. [v. State, 27 N.E.3d 336, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)], we find that Dada is entitled to relief. She was charged with a criminal offense that was eventually dismissed [pursuant to a pretrial diversion agreement], and the fact that she was not formally arrested does not vitiate her right to expungement of the records related to this incident.
Friedlander, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Sabrina Dada appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition to expunge the records of a 2007 summons for a charge of Class C misdemeanor illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage. The trial court denied Dada’s petition because she had been summonsed rather than arrested. Finding that Dada is entitled to relief, we reverse and remand with instructions to expunge the relevant records.
….
Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 governs the expungement of records related to criminal charges that did not result in a conviction. It applies “only to a person who has been arrested[.]” I.C. 35-38-9-1(a). The trial court reasoned that because Dada was never actually arrested, she is not entitled to the relief she seeks.
We cannot conclude that the legislature intended for this result to be reached, inasmuch as it would offer relief to more problematic offenders and deny relief to more compliant ones. … And indeed, the General Assembly has recognized that the statute as written may lead to unjust results. The statute has been amended to read that it “applies only to a person who has been arrested, charged with an offense, or alleged to be a delinquent child,” I.C. 35-38-9-1(a) (effective date of July 1, 2015) (emphasis added).
….
As in J.B. [v. State, 27 N.E.3d 336, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)], we find that Dada is entitled to relief. She was charged with a criminal offense that was eventually dismissed [pursuant to a pretrial diversion agreement], and the fact that she was not formally arrested does not vitiate her right to expungement of the records related to this incident.
Friedlander, J., and Bailey, J., concur.