State v. Moulder, 2013 Ohio 1036

Moulder pled guilty in 2009 to second-degree-misdemeanor attempted assault; sentenced to 90-day suspended jail term, $750 fine, and six months probation.
In 2010, after probation, Moulder applied to seal records under R.C. 2953.32(A); state opposed; trial court denied without a hearing.
On October 7, 2011, he filed a second expungement application; state opposed; trial court denied on June 8, 2012, again without a hearing.
Moulder appealed asserting (a) abuse of discretion in denial and (b) denial of a hearing under R.C. 2953.52(B).
The appellate court held the denial without a hearing was an abuse of discretion and reversed/remanded for a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying expungement without a hearing	Moulder argues liberal construction requires a hearing on expungement	State contends no hearing needed when determinative issues can be decided from briefs	Yes; failure to hold a hearing constitutes abuse of discretion
Whether due process was violated by not holding a hearing	Moulder asserts due process requires a hearing under the expungement statute	State maintains hearing not always required when law can be decided from briefs	Yes; hearing required under the statute was mandatory

State v. J.K., 2011-Ohio-5675 (8th Dist. 2011) (hearing may be unnecessary when state raises determinative questions of law)
State v. Hann, 2007-Ohio-6201 (8th Dist. 2007) (hearing is mandatory in expungement context)
State v. Houston, 2002-Ohio-329 (8th Dist. 2002) (hearing required on expungement when appropriate)
State v. Salim, 2003-Ohio-2024 (8th Dist. 2003) (hearing required where necessary to review state interests)
State v. Minch, 2007-Ohio-158 (8th Dist. 2007) (res judicata not applicable where no hearing held on first application)