2013 Ohio 5281
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 1999 Barber pled guilty to corruption of a minor, a fourth-degree felony under R.C. 2907.04(A).
- The trial court sentenced him to 12 months in prison, suspended, plus five years of community control.
- He was classified as a sexually oriented offender, requiring address registration with the sheriff for 10 years.
- Barber was released from community control in 2005.
- On December 21, 2012, Barber moved to expunge his conviction under R.C. 2953.32.
- The trial court denied the motion, citing R.C. 2953.36 which precludes sealing for this offense; Barber appealed timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was harm finding required before expungement denial? | Barber asserts a harm finding must be made. | Barber argues the Williamson rule applies; not required here. | Not required by statute; denial upheld under 2953.36. |
| Is a minor victim who participates in a sexual act exempt from 'victim' under 2953.36(D)? | Norfolk-like argument; victim not per se excluded. | Barber relies on cases extending non-sealing; not applicable. | Inapplicable rationale; statute precludes sealing for 2907.04 offenses. |
| Does a harm finding precede ineligibility for expungement under 2953.36? | Barber argues a harm finding is necessary. | Legislature predetermined ineligibility for 2907.04 offenses. | No harm finding required; court properly denied expungement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 2009-Ohio-2653 (7th Dist. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for expungement denials)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse of discretion standard context)
- State v. Williamson, 2012-Ohio-5384 (10th Dist. 2012) (victim harm findings not mandated in all expungement contexts)
- State v. Norfolk, 2005-Ohio-336 (10th Dist. 2005) (victim age in expungement context specific circumstances)