Bradford, CJ.
Pranav Mishra was convicted of misdemeanor offenses in Tippecanoe County, Hamilton County, and Monroe County in 2007, 2009, and 2016, respectively. In March of 2020, the Monroe County prosecutor gave consent for Mishra to file an expungement petition before the expiration of the statutory five-year waiting period. After his Monroe County conviction was expunged, Mishra filed a petition to expunge his 2007 Tippecanoe County conviction. The trial court denied Mishra’s petition, finding that the expungement of Mishra’s Monroe County conviction did not alter the fact that he had been convicted of a crime within the previous five years. On appeal, Mishra argues, and the State agrees, that the trial court erred in considering Mishra’s expunged Monroe County conviction in denying his petition to expunge his 2007 Tippecanoe County conviction. Because we agree with Mishra and the State, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instruction for the trial court to enter an order granting Mishra’s petition.
…
Mishra contends, and the State agrees, that the trial court erred in considering Mishra’s expunged Monroe County conviction in denying his expungement petition on the grounds that he had been convicted of a crime during the previous five years. Specifically, the State asserts that “[b]ecause [Mishra’s] 2016 Monroe County conviction has been expunged, he must be treated as if that conviction never occurred, which means that he no longer has any criminal convictions within the previous five years” and Mishra “therefore satisfies all of the requirements of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-2(e) and is entitled to expungement of his 2007 Tippecanoe County misdemeanor conviction.”
…
As both Mishra and the State note, Indiana Code section 35-38-9-10(e) generally provides that a “person whose record is expunged shall be treated as if the person had never been convicted of the offense.” Recognizing that there are a few enumerated exceptions to this general rule, the State further notes that “[n]one of the enumerated exceptions authorize a court to consider an expunged conviction in the context of an expungement proceeding for purposes of determining whether the person has a conviction within the previous five years.” Appellee’s Br. p. 9. We further agree with the State that under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the specification of some exceptions in a statute means that other matters not specified are excluded, and courts are not free to graft additional exceptions onto a statute. See A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, 97 N.E.3d 606, 614 (Ind. 2018). The trial court therefore erred when it considered Mishra’s previously-expunged 2016 Monroe County conviction in relation to Mishra’s petition to expunge his 2007 Tippecanoe County conviction.
…
The State concedes on appeal that “[b]ecause [Mishra’s] 2016 Monroe County conviction has been expunged, the plain language of Section 35-38-9-10(e) commands that he be treated as if that 2016 conviction had never occurred.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. The State further acknowledges that Mishra “now satisfies all four requirements in Section 35-38-9-2(e) and is therefore entitled to expungement of his 2007 Tippecanoe County conviction.” Appellee’s Br. p. 10. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions for the trial court to grant Mishra’s petition to expunge his 2007 Class A misdemeanor conviction.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded with instructions. Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.