May, J.
Brian J. Allen appeals the denial of his petition for expungement. He argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition. We affirm.
…
On February 4, 2021, the trial court denied Allen’s petition for expungement. The court confirmed that denial on May 21, 2021, after the trial court received additional testimony from Allen and Allen’s wife. The trial court’s decision, as noted supra, examined the circumstances of the crime and Allen’s involvement in the criminal incident from which his conviction stemmed. The trial court recognized Allen did not participate in the attack on the Pohlgeers insofar as striking any blows, but also noted his inaction in obtaining medical help for Mr. Pohlgeer, who Allen saw “bleeding like a stuck pig” and “on his hands and knees” in a “pile of blood[.]” (App. Vol. III at 5.) The trial court recognized the “positive evidence” presented on Allen’s behalf, but the trial court ultimately determined “some crimes are too awful to warrant expungement, and this is one of those crimes.” (Id. at 7.)
Allen argues that the trial court did not give sufficient weight to the rehabilitative efforts Allen has made since his conviction, which our Indiana Supreme Court noted in its decision:
At the hearing on his petition, the court heard testimony from Allen on his commitment to work and to his wife and two children. The expungement, he testified, would permit him to advance his career, to “do a better job of being able to provide for [his] family,” and to teach his children responsibility. The court also admitted into evidence letters of recommendation from Allen’s brother-in-law, his coworker, and a doctor – each of whom attested to Allen’s good character and strong work ethic. And while neither of the Pohlgeers attended the expungement hearing, the court considered their testimony from other sources. Larry Pohlgeers, who had passed away, opined at an earlier sentence-modification hearing that Allen “should be given a break” since he’d “learned his lesson.” For her part, Judith Pohlgeers informed a victims’ advocate that she “was in agreement with Mr. Allen’s conviction being expunged in this matter.”
Allen, 159 N.E.3d at 582. Allen’s argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The trial court’s findings make clear that it considered the nature and circumstances of Allen’s crime and Allen’s character, including his rehabilitation efforts since his conviction, and in light of those findings we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Allen’s petition for expungement. Cf. Ball v State, 165 N.E.3d 130, 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (reversing denial of petition for expungement of two convictions of Class C felony burglary because the trial court abused its discretion by citing reasons for expungement that were improper and ignoring significant rehabilitative efforts by Bell in the twenty years since the non-violent crimes occurred).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Allen’s petition for expungement. We accordingly affirm the decision of the trial court.
Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.