State v. C.K.State v. C.K.
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Frank D. Celebrezze Jr., Eileen A. Gallagher, Eileen T. Gallagher
{¶1} This is an appeal by the state regarding the trial court‘s granting of appellee‘s motion to seal all official records of his arrest. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On October 13, 2009, defendant-appellee, C.K.,1 was indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury for murder in violation of
{¶4} At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted appellee of murder in violatiоn of
{¶5} On February 5, 2013, appellee filed an application to seal all official records and a motion to dismiss the underlying criminal charges with prejudice. The state filed a brief in opposition to the application for sealing records of conviction on March 22, 2013.
{¶6} At the hearing, appellee argued that he had a legitimate interest in sealing the records so that he could obtain gainful employment. In opposing the motion, the state argued that it has a legitimate governmental interest in maintaining criminal records such as appellee‘s so that the publiс is aware of who has an arrest record or has been convicted of certain crimes.
{¶7} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that appellee‘s interest in sеaling the official record of his criminal proceedings outweighed any legitimate government interest the state had in keeping them open. Accordingly, the trial court granted appеllee‘s application to seal all official records, but denied his motion to dismiss the underlying criminal charges with prejudice.
{¶8} The state now brings this timely appeal, raising one assignment of errоr for review.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶9} In its sole assignment of error, the state argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted appellee‘s application to seal all official records. Specifically, the state contends that appellee was not eligible to have his records sealed because there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. For the foregоing reasons, we find no merit to the state‘s argument.
{¶11}
the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor in the case of the hеaring on the application. The prosecutor may object to the granting of the application by filing an objection with the court prior to the date set for the hearing. The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons the prosecutor believes justify a denial of the application.
{¶12} In considering the application pursuant to
(a)(i) Determine whether the person was found not guilty in the cаse, or the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed * * *; (ii) If the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed, determine whether it was dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice and, if it was dismissed without prejudice, determine whether the relevant statute of limitations has expired;
(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the person;
(c) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with division (B)(1) of this section, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the оbjection;
(d) Weigh the interests of the person in having the official records pertaining to the case sealed against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records.
{¶13} If the court determines, after complying with division (B)(2), that (1) the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed, (2) that no criminal proceedings are pending against the person, and (3) that the interest of the person having the records pertaining to the case are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to maintain such records, then “the court shall issue an order directing that all official records pertaining to the case be sealed and that * * * the proceedings in the case be deemed not to have occurred.”
{¶14} In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the underlying criminal complaint was dismissed and that no charges were pending against appellee at the time he filed his application to seal his criminal record. Mоreover, the record reflects that the trial court adequately balanced the competing interests of the parties before determining that appellee‘s interest in obtaining gаinful employment was not outweighed by the legitimate needs of the government to maintain the records.
{¶15} Because the trial court properly weighed the relevant factors delineatеd under
{¶16} Finally, we find no merit to the state‘s argument that the trial court‘s judgment was improper based on the fact that the statute of limitations on the dismissed
{¶17} Based on the foregoing, we overrule the state‘s sole assignment of error. However, we note that the court‘s journal entry incorrectly refers to the expungement of appellee‘s “conviction,” and incorrectly cites
{¶18} Judgment affirmed and case remanded. The clerk of the court of appeals is instructed to reseal the trial court record and to seal the court of appeаls record in this case.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is оrdered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR