Skip to main content
Glama

Court Delta

Which North Carolina (NC) expunction statute and petition form fit a case

check_expunction_options
Read-only

Which expunction statute and AOC petition form fit how each charge ended.

Reads the case's actual per-charge dispositions and routes each one to the statute(s) that cover that outcome, with the petition and instruction-sheet links, where to file, and the fee. Call with no caseNumber to get the whole statute table.

CHECK automaticExpunction FIRST AND LEAD YOUR ANSWER WITH IT. Under G.S. 15A-146(a4), a case where EVERY charge was dismissed without leave, dismissed by the court, or ended in a not-guilty/not-responsible finding — all disposed on or after 12/01/2021, with no felony dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement — is expunged BY OPERATION OF LAW, 180 to 210 days after final disposition. NOTHING IS FILED. No petition, no form, no fee.

When automaticExpunction.applies is true, the correct answer to "what do I file?" is "nothing — it happens on its own between and ". Do NOT lead with the petition forms; sending someone to a clerk with a $175 fee discussion when the charges expunge themselves for free is a wrong answer. The petition routing is the fallback if the automatic expunction does not in fact occur.

THIS IS THE ONE DETERMINATION THIS TOOL MAKES, and it is safe precisely because (a4) turns only on how the charges on THIS case ended — which the record shows in full — and not on anything person-level. determinable: false means the record could not answer (a charge with no disposition, an unrecognised disposition); say so rather than treating it as a "no".

EVERYTHING ELSE ROUTES. IT DOES NOT DECIDE ELIGIBILITY, and you must not present it as doing so. Three reasons, all of which belong in your answer when someone asks "can I get this expunged?":

  • Eligibility is PERSON-level. A disqualifying conviction anywhere bars relief, and this data cannot confirm identity — date of birth is rarely published and is masked to the year, and common names collide heavily.

  • A prior expunction can itself disqualify, and an expunged case is REMOVED from the court record — so the very thing that would disqualify someone is invisible here.

  • Some expunctions bar future ones, so which statute you petition under matters. The North Carolina (NC) Courts guidance is to consult an attorney about that choice.

"NOT YET ELIGIBLE" IS SAFE TO SAY when a waiting period plainly hasn't run — that is arithmetic. "Eligible" is never safe to say.

WAITING PERIODS come from G.S. 15A-145.5(c): 3 years for one nonviolent misdemeanour, 7 for more than one, 10 for one nonviolent felony, 15 for breaking or entering under 14-54(a), 20 for two or three felonies. THE DATE RETURNED IS THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE. The statute runs the clock from conviction OR from completion of any active sentence, probation or post-release supervision, WHICHEVER IS LATER — and completion dates are not in this record. Say the date is a floor, not a target.

family per charge: "dismissed", "acquitted", "convicted", "pjc", or "unknown". Treat each differently:

  • dismissed + withLeave: true → the State may still REINSTATE the charge. Flag it, and note it also defeats automatic expunction under (a4).

  • dismissed + perPleaAgreement: true → 15A-146 treats dismissals pursuant to deferred prosecution or conditional discharge differently from plain ones.

  • "acquitted" → found not guilty or not responsible at trial. Routes to 15A-146(a2), and qualifies for automatic expunction under (a4).

  • "pjc" → neither conviction nor dismissal; no statute is suggested, by design.

  • "unknown" → the register text didn't map (e.g. "Superior Process/ Probation Other"). The full statute table comes back instead. Do NOT guess an outcome.

An impaired-driving charge returns no statutes: G.S. 15A-145.5(a1) makes it ineligible.

G.S. 15A-146(a6): a court may grant a petition under that section WITHOUT a hearing, except where the section says otherwise. Do not tell someone to expect a hearing on a 15A-146 petition as though it were automatic.

Read-only. NC only. Informational, not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
felonyNo
caseNumberNo
convictionCountNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: automatic expunction means 'NOTHING IS FILED,' `determinable: false` should be reported rather than treated as 'no,' impaired-driving charges return no statutes, and 15A-146(a6) makes hearings non-automatic. These traits are not inferable from the schema or annotations and materially change the agent's answer formation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and emphatic, but it is well-sectioned and front-loaded with the most critical behavior (automatic expunction). Every major paragraph earns its place given the legal complexity. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeated 'no petition, no form, no fee'), and the all-caps emphasis is somewhat noisy, but structure remains clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is exceptionally complete on output semantics, edge cases (dismissed with leave, unknown, pjc, impaired-driving), and safety disclaimers. The main gap is input completeness: `felony` and `convictionCount` are not explained. An output schema exists and is rich, so return-value coverage is not required, but a complete callable definition should still document those two parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, but it only explicitly explains `caseNumber` via 'Call with no `caseNumber` to get the whole statute table.' The `felony` and `convictionCount` parameters are never tied to the schema fields or given any usage semantics. Concepts like felony and conviction counts appear in legal discussion but not as parameter guidance, leaving two of three parameters effectively undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'routes each one to the statute(s) that cover that outcome, with the petition and instruction-sheet links.' It also sharply distinguishes this from eligibility determination ('THIS IS THE ONE DETERMINATION THIS TOOL MAKES'), which prevents confusion with broader legal-advice tools and sibling case-lookup tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Call with no `caseNumber` to get the whole statute table' and 'Check `automaticExpunction` FIRST AND LEAD YOUR ANSWER WITH IT.' It also states clear when-not-to conditions: 'IT DOES NOT DECIDE ELIGIBILITY,' and warns against saying 'eligible' when only arithmetic supports 'not yet eligible.' This is far beyond basic when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources