State v. R.A.
2012 Ohio 2507
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- RA pled guilty in two cases (2005) to multiple burglaries; sentenced to five years of community control in both cases.
- RA filed expungement applications under R.C. 2953.32 on August 16, 2011.
- Trial court ordered an expungement report but did not set a hearing.
- Trial court denied the expungement motions without a hearing, ruling RA was not a first offender.
- State conceded the error of not holding a mandatory hearing.
- Judgments reversed and remanded for proper expungement proceedings with a hearing per statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a hearing mandatory on expungement applications under R.C. 2953.32(B)? | RA argues the hearing requirement was not met. | State contends the court can decide issues of law without a hearing. | Yes; trial court erred by denying without a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824 (8th Dist. 2001) (setting of hearing required by statute)
- State v. Boddie, 170 Ohio App.3d 590 (8th Dist. 2007) (mandatory hearing for expungement remedies)
- State v. Keller, 2009-Ohio-3300 (8th Dist. 2009) (reversal for failure to hold expungement hearing)
- State v. Hann, 173 Ohio App.3d 716 (8th Dist. 2007) (statutory 'shall' language indicates mandatory hearing)
- State v. J.K., 2011-Ohio-5675 (8th Dist. 2011) (rejected notion that law-only issues can avoid hearing; old line of cases followed)
- State v. Saltzer, 14 Ohio App.3d 394 (8th Dist. 1984) (expungement procedures and remedy posture)