Bailey, J.
Brian J. Allen (“Allen”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for expungement of his criminal record pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-9- 4. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it denied his request.
We reverse
On November 5, 2018, Allen filed a petition in which he sought expungement of a conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, as a Class B felony, that had resulted from Allen’s conspiracy with three friends to burglarize the home of Larry and Judith Pohlgeers in 2002.
…
Allen served thirty-four months of incarceration and was placed on probation on July 15, 2005. Allen successfully completed probation and was released from it on October 9, 2015. On November 5, 2018, Allen filed a petition seeking expungement of his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, as a Class B felony, and noting that he had no additional convictions. At the April 1 hearing on Allen’s petition, the State did not oppose the petition; however, it noted that it was “somewhat unclear as to whether or not [Allen] is eligible” for expungement because “serious bodily injury during the course of that crime did occur.” Tr. at 30-31.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted that, based on his review of the case file, “it was bad. And I think it was real bad.” Id. at 33. The court denied Allen’s petition for expungement in an order dated April 11, 2019. This appeal ensued.
…
Allen sought expungement of his conviction pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-9-4. That statute gives a trial court discretion to grant relief to qualified felons, other than Class D or Level 6 felons, 8 when it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the requisite period has elapsed (eight years from the date of conviction or three years from the completion of the sentence, or as shortened by prosecutorial agreement); (2) no charges are pending against the person; (3) applicable fines, costs, and restitution have been paid; and (4) the person has not been convicted of a crime within the previous eight years (or a shorter period with prosecutorial agreement). I.C. § 35-38-9-4(c), (e) (2018).
…
Here, it is undisputed that Allen meets the qualifications for expungement listed in subsections (c) and (e) of the statute…The parties’ only dispute is whether Allen is ineligible for expungement under subsection (b)(3) of the statute which excludes persons “convicted of a felony that resulted in serious bodily injury to another person.” I.C. § 35-38-9-4(b)(3). The trial court apparently held and the State maintains, that Allen is ineligible because the facts surrounding the incident that resulted in his conviction included serious bodily injury to the Pohlgeers.
…
Here, the charges against Allen that involved bodily injury were all dismissed under the plea agreement. Allen was only convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary under subsection (1)(B) of Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1, i.e., breaking and entering the dwelling of another. He was not convicted under subsection (2) of the burglary statute, i.e., breaking and entering the building or structure of another that results in bodily injury or serious bodily injury.
Because Allen was not “convicted of a felony that resulted in serious bodily injury to another person,” he cannot be excluded from eligibility for expungement on that basis. I.C. § 35-38-9-4(b)(3); Trout, 28 N.E.3d at 271-72. And since that was the only apparent basis for the trial court’s denial of Allen’s request for expungement, the trial court was in error. See Cline, 61 N.E.3d at 363 (noting that, “[a]lthough the trial court is granted discretion, this does not extend to disregard of remedial measures enacted by our lawmakers” for the purpose of “provid[ing] a second chance for individuals who have in the distant past committed” crimes); see also Burton v. State, 71 N.E.3d 24, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (noting remedial expungement statutes should be liberally construed to advance the remedy for which they were enacted).
We reverse.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur