2015 Ohio 308
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1987 Grillo pleaded no contest to third-degree felony theft of an automobile, received probation, and successfully completed it.
- Grillo filed motions to seal (expunge) the 1987 conviction in 2009 and 2010; both were denied or withdrawn because he had subsequent misdemeanor convictions that made him ineligible under the statute then in effect.
- In 2012 the legislature amended R.C. 2953.32 to replace “first-time offender” with a broader “eligible offender” definition, allowing certain persons with one felony and one misdemeanor to seek sealing.
- Grillo moved again in 2014 after he successfully had a 1991 criminal trespass plea withdrawn and the charge nolled; the State opposed, citing prior misdemeanors (including an alleged 1986 drag racing conviction and driving-under-suspension) and arguing res judicata and public-interest reasons.
- The trial court granted the 2014 sealing after indicating Grillo could submit proof that the 1986 drag-racing charge had been reduced to speeding; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grillo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether res judicata barred Grillo’s successive application | Earlier denials should bar rehearing; statute change irrelevant | Statutory amendment expanding eligibility is a material change permitting a new application | Reversed trial court? No — res judicata does not bar rehearing when statute changed to broaden eligibility |
| 2. Whether Grillo was an eligible offender given prior convictions (trespass, drag racing, driving-under-suspension, others) | Prior convictions disqualify Grillo; nolled trespass should still count; State lacked some records but asserted disqualifying offenses | Grillo: trespass was vacated/nolled; drag racing was reduced to speeding; no proof of certain alleged convictions | Trial court failed to make statutory findings about prior dispositions; appellate court sustained State’s challenge and found inadequate record/finding on prior convictions |
| 3. Whether the trial court held the full statutory hearing required by R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.52 | Trial court did not perform all required determinations (eligibility, pending charges, rehabilitation, weighing government interest) | Grillo relied on court’s oral invitation to submit proof and argued procedural sufficiency | Appellate court held trial court erred by not making required findings and conducting the full hearing; reversed and remanded |
| 4. Whether a nolle or withdrawn uncounseled plea should be treated as a conviction for eligibility purposes | State: the nolled trespass still may disqualify unless court determines dismissal-without-prejudice/statute-of-limitations bar | Grillo: the trespass plea was withdrawn and charge nolled; it should not count as a conviction | Appellate court: trial court failed to make required R.C. 2953.52 determinations regarding the trespass nolle; remand required for proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178, 772 N.E.2d 1172 (2002) (the version of the expungement statute in effect when the application is filed controls)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 665 N.E.2d 669 (1996) (expungement is a statutory privilege; hearings are for information-gathering and requirements must be satisfied)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420, 884 N.E.2d 568 (2008) (res judicata should not bar rehearing when statutory changes create new rights)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7, 14 N.E.3d 989 (2014) (statutory procedures and hearing requirements for sealing records after dismissal or acquittal must be followed)
- Set Prods., Inc. v. Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 31 Ohio St.3d 260, 510 N.E.2d 373 (1987) (changes in governing law can create exceptions to res judicata in the interest of justice)
Outcome: Judgment granting sealing reversed; case remanded for the trial court to hold the statutorily required hearing and make the findings required by R.C. 2953.32(C) and R.C. 2953.52(B).