State v. Hutchen, 946 N.E.2d 270

Hutchen appeals the denial of his 2009 expungement application for a 1964 CCW conviction.
Trial court denied expungement on August 14, 2009, stating Hutchen was a multiple-state offender and not a first-and-only-time offender.
Hutchen sought appellate review; the case record includes later pro se submissions in 2010 requesting expungement.
The appellate court construed Hutchen’s 2010 submissions as his brief in the expungement appeal.
The court found Hutchen’s appeal timely but determined he was entitled to a hearing and proper notice under R.C. 2953.32(B); the record lacked evidence of a hearing or prosecutor notice.
The trial court’s judgment did not show a hearing or notice as required; the matter was reversed and remanded for conduct of a hearing consistent with the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal timely?	Hutchen contends timely as time for appeal never began due to service defects.	State contends untimely under App.R. 4.	Appeal timely; time never began to run.
Whether Hutchen was entitled to a hearing under R.C. 2953.32(B).	Hutchen is entitled to a hearing on the expungement application.	Record shows only that the court considered the application, not that a hearing occurred.	Entitled to a hearing; remand for proper hearing under statute.
Whether proper notice to the prosecutor was required and provided.	Prosecutor must be given notice before a hearing under R.C. 2953.32(B).	Not clearly shown that notice was given; absence of notice invalidates proceedings.	Remand for compliance with notice provisions; record lacking evidence of notice.

Dayton v. P.D., 149 Ohio App.3d 684 (2002-Ohio-5589) (reversed without hearing and remanded to ensure statutory hearing and notice)
State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46 (1975) (requires hearing and proper procedure in expungement-type processes)
State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-7055 (2007) (discusses procedural prerequisites for expungement proceedings)