State v. Boykin
2012 Ohio 1381
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Boykin pled guilty in 1992 to receiving stolen property in Summit County; record later moved to seal.
- She sought sealing in 1996 and 2000, but the trial court denied both motions.
- In 1996 she pled no contest to two counts of theft by Akron Municipal Court.
- In 2009 the Governor pardoned Boykin for the three offenses.
- Both the Summit County Common Pleas Court and Akron Municipal Court denied sealing motions after the pardon, with appeals consolidated for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a full pardon requires sealing of records automatically | Boykin argues pardon requires sealing via inherent authority | Court says pardon does not automatically entitle sealing | Pardon does not automatically entitle sealing; remaining discretion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (Ohio 1981) (judicial expungement available in exceptional cases)
- State v. Stadler, 14 Ohio App.3d 10 (9th Dist.1983) (expungement limitations before statutes)
- State v. Netter, 64 Ohio App.3d 322 (4th Dist.1989) (courts limited in expungement for convicted persons)
- State v. Weber, 19 Ohio App.3d 214 (1st Dist.1984) (pre-statute expungement issues for convictions)
- Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St.377 (1883) (pardons and rehabilitation; estoppel of record concepts)
- State v. Cope, 111 Ohio App.3d 309 (1st Dist.1996) (unconditional pardon; broad language supports sealing)
- State ex rel. Gordon v. Zangerle, 136 Ohio St.371 (1940) (full pardon purges guilt and removes legal effect)
- U.S. v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952 (3d Cir.1990) (federal authority on pardons and record considerations)