State v. Clark, 2011 Ohio 6354

Clark was convicted in 2003 of possession of cocaine.
In 2009, Clark filed a motion to expunge and seal records; the state objected and the court ordered a response regarding two misdemeanor convictions.
Clark did not respond to the 2010 order and the court dismissed the first expungement motion.
In 2010, Clark filed a second expungement motion addressing two misdemeanor convictions, including a 4503.11 conviction; he argued it should not be considered a subsequent conviction.
The court ordered an investigation by the Adult Parole Authority; the detective report indicated a 2008 4503.11 conviction, which is not listed as a first-offender exclusion.
The court denied the motion in 2011, finding Clark not a first offender under R.C. 2953.31 and thus ineligible for expungement; there was no hearing date set and no hearing held.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing.	Clark: must have a hearing under R.C. 2953.32.	State: hearing not required when not a first offender and records support denial.	No abuse; hearing not required given Clark not a first offender.

State v. Wright, 191 Ohio App.3d 647 (2010-Ohio-6259) (review of expungement decision on abuse-of-discretion standard; de novo where interpreting statutes)
State v. Derugen, 110 Ohio App.3d 408 (1996) (first-offender status is a question of law subject to independent review)
State v. Saltzer, 14 Ohio App.3d 394 (1984) (hearing mandatory in expungement context)
State v. Sufronko, 105 Ohio App.3d 504 (1995) (statutory interpretation governs expungement eligibility)
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 52 (2006) (clear statutory language controls; no additions to statutes)
Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Educ., 97 Ohio St.3d 451 (2002) (statutory interpretation and enforcement principles reaffirmed)