The Ohio First District Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of N.S., the defendant-appellant, ordering the expungement of her criminal records related to a 2021 theft conviction and the dismissal of a menacing charge. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying N.S.’s applications for expungement after it had already granted her applications to seal the same records.
The case, which originated in Hamilton County, involved N.S. who pleaded guilty to theft in December 2021. The prosecution dismissed a menacing charge in exchange for the guilty plea. In 2024, N.S. applied to have her records sealed and expunged. The trial court granted the sealing but initially denied the expungement without providing a clear explanation.
The Legal Background
The court’s decision hinged on the legal distinction between record sealing and expungement under Ohio Revised Code 2953.32. Both processes aim to offer relief to individuals with criminal records, but they differ in their scope.
Sealing a record shields it from public view, limiting access to certain individuals and for specific purposes. Expungement, on the other hand, goes further, resulting in the “deletion” of records, making them nearly irretrievable. The Ohio First District Court of Appeals pointed out that expungement is, therefore, the more favorable outcome for the applicant.
The law requires a trial court to consider the same seven factors when deciding on either record sealing or expungement. These factors include whether the applicant is eligible, if there are any pending criminal proceedings, if the applicant has been satisfactorily rehabilitated, and the interests of the applicant versus the state’s need to maintain the records.
The Trial Court’s Actions
In this case, the trial court found that N.S. met all the necessary requirements for both sealing and expungement. The court’s initial entry granted the sealing of the records, but it did not address the expungement applications. Later, the court issued a “nunc pro tunc” entry, which explicitly granted the sealing applications but still did not mention expungement.
The Appeals Court’s Reasoning
The appeals court focused on the trial court’s failure to provide a rationale for denying expungement after determining that N.S. met all the requirements for sealing. The appeals court cited the statute, R.C. 2953.32(D)(2)(a), which states that if an applicant meets the criteria, the court “shall” order expungement. The use of “shall” makes expungement mandatory in these circumstances, according to the court.
The appeals court noted that the trial court’s findings in support of sealing were the same findings required for expungement. Since the trial court found that N.S. met all the criteria for sealing, and the same factors apply to expungement, the court was legally obligated to grant the expungement. The appeals court concluded that the trial court’s unexplained denial of expungement, after granting sealing, was an abuse of discretion.
The State’s Position and the Victim’s Testimony
The State opposed the applications, arguing that N.S.’s criminal history should be maintained for public awareness. The victim in the menacing case testified and, notably, stated that she believed N.S. had changed and expressed no opposition to the applications. The trial court considered the State’s concerns but found no specific reason to deny expungement.
The Concurring Opinion
Judge Zayas, in a concurring opinion, elaborated on the court’s decision. Judge Zayas emphasized that the trial court’s findings in granting the sealing of the records required that the expungement also be granted. The judge pointed out that the trial court had made a favorable determination regarding N.S.’s rehabilitation. The victim also expressed no objections to the applications. Since the State presented no legitimate need to maintain the record, there was no basis for denying expungement.
The Outcome
The appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision in part and ordered the trial court to grant N.S.’s applications for expungement. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, meaning the sealing of the records was upheld.
This case highlights the importance of clear legal reasoning and adherence to statutory mandates in decisions regarding criminal records. It also underscores the significant difference between record sealing and expungement, and the legal consequences that follow.