State v. Hill, 63 N.E.3d 690

Tamara M. Hill sought to seal (expunge) the record of a 2006 guilty plea to attempted burglary (felony) from a 2005 incident. She applied under R.C. 2953.32 after completing her sentence and community control.
The State objected, asserting the underlying complaint alleged Hill entered a residence and assaulted a 13-year-old; R.C. 2953.36(F) bars sealing convictions involving victims under 18.
The trial court held a hearing; the State offered no testimony and relied on its written objection and charging documents. Hill argued the incident was different from the State’s characterization.
The written record includes: a complaint alleging forceful entry and a purpose to harm a “13 Y.O.A.”; an indictment (names redacted) alleging aggravated burglary and an alleged victim who was assaulted or threatened; and a judgment entry showing a guilty plea to attempted burglary and a stay-away order for “Althea Berry aka Alther Berry” (age not listed).
The trial court concluded the identifiable victim of the conviction was the property owner/resident (not demonstrably the 13-year-old) and granted sealing; the State appealed on the sole issue that R.C. 2953.36(F) barred sealing because a minor was a victim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.36(F) (ineligibility to seal when a victim was under 18) bars sealing here	The record (complaint and indictment) shows the offense occurred in circumstances involving a 13-year-old victim, making Hill ineligible to seal	The offense of conviction (attempted burglary) and the record before the court identify the victim as the property owner/resident; the record does not clearly show the 13-year-old was the victim of the conviction	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion in identifying the victim as the property owner/resident and granting sealing

State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (trial court must examine the entire record, not just plea, when determining expungement eligibility)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (expungement is a statutory privilege, not a right)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
State v. Mowery, 1 Ohio St.3d 192 (Ohio 1982) (victim of burglary need not own or reside in the structure)
State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (clarifies terminology: sealing commonly called expungement)