State v. Mullin, 2014 Ohio 764

Steven J. Mullin pleaded guilty in 1992 to two counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle (two third-degree felonies) involving two different cars on March 8, 1992 and June 16, 1992.
Mullin first sought expungement in 1998 and was denied; he filed a second application under the amended R.C. 2953.32 on January 29, 2013.
At the 2013 hearing the state did not oppose expungement, but the trial court denied the application, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Mullin was not an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.31(A).
The trial court ruled the two convictions could not be counted as one: they were neither from the same act nor committed within the statutory three‑month period (they were eight days beyond the three months).
Mullin appealed, arguing his convictions should be treated as one conviction either because they "resulted from or are connected with the same act" or because they were related and occurred "close to" the three‑month window.
The Twelfth District affirmed, holding the statutory language is unambiguous and Mullin did not meet either statutory method for treating multiple convictions as one.

Issue	Mullin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant expungement because Mullin was an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.31(A)	Mullin argued his two convictions should be counted as one because they "resulted from or are connected with the same act" (a single criminal adventure)	The state (and trial court) maintained the offenses were separate acts on different dates and thus cannot be treated as one conviction	Court held convictions were distinct (separate victims, locations, dates) and not "connected with the same act," so they cannot be counted as one
Whether the convictions could be counted as one because they resulted from the same official proceeding, were related, and were committed within three months	Mullin argued the second offense (June 16) was only eight days beyond the three‑month statutory window and that the statute should be liberally construed in his favor	The state argued the statute unambiguously requires the related acts be committed within three months; Mullin’s second offense occurred after that period	Court held the statute is plain and unambiguous; because the second offense occurred more than three months after the first, the convictions cannot be counted as one and Mullin is not an eligible offender

State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (describing expungement as an act of statutory grace)
State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (expungement should be granted only when statutory requirements are met)
State v. McGinnis, 90 Ohio App.3d 479 (4th Dist. 1993) (two convictions on same day from a single binge could be treated as connected)
Bailey v. Republic Engineered Steels, Inc., 91 Ohio St.3d 38 (2001) (definition of statutory ambiguity)