You completed diversion. Your case was dismissed. Now you want to move forward, but another criminal case is pending. Does that mean sealing the old record is off the table?
A dismissed case and a conviction follow different paths under Arizona’s record-sealing law. A.R.S. § 13-911 allows petitions involving dismissed charges, and its conviction-based waiting periods do not apply simply because a dismissed charge was originally a felony or misdemeanor (A.R.S. § 13-911(A)(2), (E)). But pending charges raise separate timing questions, and being eligible to ask for relief is not the same as being entitled to an order granting it (A.R.S. § 13-911(D), (N)).
Before filing, it helps to separate three questions: What happened in the old case? What does the statute require? And is now the right time to ask?
Can a dismissed diversion case be sealed in Arizona?
Arizona law allows a person to petition to seal case records when the person was charged with an offense and the charge was later dismissed or resulted in a not-guilty verdict at trial (A.R.S. § 13-911(A)(2)). If diversion ended with dismissal rather than a conviction, that is the provision to examine, subject to the statute’s other eligibility requirements and offense exclusions (A.R.S. § 13-911(A), (G), (O)).
The important document is the actual court disposition, not just a certificate showing you completed a program. Before advising you to file, I would want to review the dismissal order and confirm exactly how the case ended.
Dismissal also is not the same thing as sealing: § 13-911 provides a separate petition-and-order process for sealing records of dismissed charges (A.R.S. § 13-911(A), (D), (I)). That distinction matters even when the dismissal order says “with prejudice,” because the sealing statute does not make that language a substitute for a sealing order (A.R.S. § 13-911(A)(2), (I)).
Is there a waiting period after dismissal?
The two-, three-, five-, and ten-year waiting periods in subsection E apply to eligible convictions, not to a charge that ended in dismissal without a conviction (A.R.S. § 13-911(E)). However, the absence of a conviction-based waiting period does not eliminate other statutory requirements, including payment of applicable court-ordered fines, fees, and restitution, offense exclusions, and restrictions following a prior denial (A.R.S. § 13-911(G), (L), (O)).
There is also a difference between when you can file and when the judge can rule. Generally, the court cannot grant or deny the petition until 60 calendar days after receiving it, unless it receives notice that the prosecutor and all victims who requested postconviction notice do not object (A.R.S. § 13-911(D)).
What if you have new criminal charges?
This is where a simple “yes” or “no” can leave out something important. The statute’s pending-charge provision is narrower than a blanket rule covering every sealing petition (A.R.S. § 13-911(N)).
What the statute actually says
Subsection N says the court may not grant or deny certain petitions until a pending charge is resolved if that charge could result in a conviction that cannot be sealed or could extend the time to file a sealing petition (A.R.S. § 13-911(N)). But it specifically refers to petitions under subsection C(3) and C(4), which address arrests for which no charges were filed, while dismissed-charge petitions are addressed in C(2) (A.R.S. § 13-911(C), (N)).
On the statute’s wording, that creates an important distinction between sealing an arrest that never led to charges and sealing a case in which charges were filed and later dismissed (A.R.S. § 13-911(C), (N)). It is not a reason to assume the new case will have no effect.
Why you should not rely on that distinction alone
The Arizona Judicial Branch’s public FAQ uses broader language, stating that a person must wait until pending or new criminal charges conclude before applying (Arizona Judicial Branch sealing FAQs). That guidance does not explain the narrower C(3)/C(4) cross-reference in subsection N, so the FAQ and the statute should not be treated as saying exactly the same thing (court FAQ; A.R.S. § 13-911(N)).
My practical advice: have an attorney evaluate the actual disposition, the pending case, and the applicable court procedure before filing. Do not rely on either “new charges always disqualify you” or “the old case was dismissed, so new charges cannot matter.”
The timing risk: a denial can mean a three-year wait
If the court denies a petition to seal case records, subsection L says the person may not file a new petition until three years after the denial (A.R.S. § 13-911(L)). That is why “let’s file and see what happens” is not my preferred approach when important issues remain unresolved.
The court must determine that sealing is in the petitioner’s best interests and the public’s safety, and it requests a DPS report covering state and federal arrests, prosecutions, and convictions (A.R.S. § 13-911(D), (H)). The prosecutor may respond and request a hearing, and victims have participation rights under the statute (A.R.S. § 13-911(D)).
Those provisions make the new case relevant to assessing the risk of filing, even when the old case ended in dismissal (A.R.S. § 13-911(D), (H)). Resolving the new case first may give your attorney a clearer record on which to base the request, but the right strategy depends on your circumstances.
Also, a denial is not the same as a procedural dismissal of the sealing petition. The Judicial Branch explains that the three-year restriction does not apply when a petition is dismissed without a ruling because it was filed in the wrong court or lacked sufficient information (Arizona Judicial Branch: If the Petition Is Denied).
Will sealing the old case keep it out of the new one?
Sealing is not a way to hide a record from the prosecutor or judge: the statute preserves access for courts, prosecuting agencies, law enforcement, and other specified entities for authorized purposes (A.R.S. § 13-911(J)). It also preserves specified uses of sealed records in later proceedings (A.R.S. § 13-911(B)).
The benefit is different: sealing restricts public access and generally allows a person to deny the covered arrest, charge, or conviction on applications, subject to significant statutory exceptions (A.R.S. § 13-911(I)). Before answering a background question, get advice about the specific application rather than assuming you can say the case “never happened.”
Should you file now or wait?
I would want to discuss both the reason you need sealing and what is happening in the new case. Useful information to bring to that conversation includes:
The old case documents: The dismissal order, diversion-completion paperwork, and any plea or sentencing documents.
The pending case: The charges, court, upcoming dates, and attorney handling the defense.
Your immediate need: A job application, housing issue, or another concrete reason timing matters.
Prior sealing requests: Any petitions you previously filed and the orders resolving them.
The goal is not simply to submit paperwork as quickly as possible. It is to choose an approach that protects your current defense while giving the sealing request the best support available.
Talk with a Tucson attorney before filing
If you completed diversion and want to seal the dismissed case, start with a review of the actual court record. If new charges are pending, include the attorney handling that case in the timing discussion.
To discuss your situation with AJB Law Firm, call or text 520-333-7977 for a free phone consultation. You can also explore our Tucson criminal-defense services and Arizona criminal-law reference library.
This article provides general information, not legal advice for a specific case. Eligibility and strategy depend on the court record, applicable law, and individual circumstances.
