The opinion
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-198
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
DEIDANIA BROWN. 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The movant, Deydania O. Taylor-Cameron, appeals from the
denial of her motion which sought removal of a criminal case
from the court activity record information (CARI) of "Deidania
Brown," and from the movant's MassCourts public records. We
affirm.
Neither the movant's underlying motion nor her appellate
brief cite to any statute or case law in support of her request
to have this name removed from the docket or from other court
records. This does not rise to the level of an appellate
1Our custom is to spell the defendant's name as it appears
in the criminal complaint, which is not in the record before us.
However, the parties appear to agree that the name used in the
complaint was "Deidania Brown."
argument, and we treat it as waived. See Mass. R. A. P.
16 (a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). See also
Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College, 493 Mass. 648, 671 (2024)
(declining to consider argument made without citation to
supporting legal authority); Halstrom v. Dube, 481 Mass. 480,
483 n.8 (2019) (same).
Even if the movant's appellate claims were not waived, they
are without merit. The movant claims that the probation
department failed to comply with an order issued by a now
retired Boston Municipal Court judge in 2015 that the underlying
case of a "Deidania Brown" be removed from the CARI system. She
also sought an order to remove the information from the
underlying case from her MassCourts public record. The movant,
however, did not provide a copy of her CARI with her motion or
submit an affidavit in support of it. The probation department
provided the motion judge with a copy of the movant's CARI and
this case does not appear on it. As the motion judge found, the
movant has not shown that the probation department failed to
comply with the retired judge's order, and thus the relief she
requested was properly denied.
In large measure, the movant's underlying motion and her
brief here rely exclusively on the retired judge's 2015 order
that the case be removed from the CARI system. What she failed
to acknowledge was the subsequent rescinding of that order in
2
2023, when an inquiry by the central identity management group
(CMIG) resulted in a consolidation of the records of Deidania
Brown and Deydania Taylor-Cameron. Without an affidavit filed
in support of the movant's motion that refutes CMIG's
consolidation of those identities, the motion judge was entitled
to rely on CMIG's findings and deny the motion. This was not an
abuse of discretion. See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169,
185 n.27 (2014).
To the extent the movant sought to have her record
expunged, it too was properly denied. The denial of a motion to
expunge is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See
Commonwealth v. K.W., 490 Mass. 619, 624 (2022).
Pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 100K, a judge has discretion to
expunge a criminal record if two conditions are met. "First,
the judge must make findings based on clear and convincing
evidence that the relevant criminal record was created because
of one or more of the reasons listed" in § 100K (a). 2 Matter of
2 These reasons include the following:
"(1) false identification of the petitioner or the
unauthorized use or theft of the petitioner's identity;
"(2) an offense at the time of the creation of the record
which at the time of expungement is no longer a crime,
except in cases where the elements of the original criminal
offense continue to be a crime under a different
designation.
"(3) demonstrable errors by law enforcement;
3
Expungement, 489 Mass. 67, 68 (2022). Second, and only after
making such findings, a judge may consider whether expungement
would be "in the best interests of justice." Id., quoting G. L.
c. 276, § 100K (b). Here, the movant failed to support her
motion with any evidence that would be sufficient to support any
of the enumerated reasons for expungement. There was no error,
and no abuse of discretion.
Order denying motion to
remove or expunge case from
court records affirmed.
By the Court (Meade,
Ditkoff & Toone, JJ. 3),
Clerk
Entered: December 8, 2025.
"(4) demonstrable errors by civilian or expert witnesses;
"(5) demonstrable errors by court employees; or
"(6) demonstrable fraud perpetrated upon the court."
G. L. c. 276, § 100K (a).
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
4