State of Ohio v. Joseph P. Gaines
Court of Appeals No. H-19-004
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HURON COUNTY
Decided: December 6, 2019
2019-Ohio-5003
ZMUDA, J.
Trial Court No. CRI 20110712
Loretta Riddle, for appellant.
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph Gaines, appeals the judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, denying his motion to seal criminal conviction. Because we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, we reverse.
{¶ 2} On March 20, 2012, appellant was sentenced to 90 days in jail following his guilty plea to one count of burglary in violation of
{¶ 3} On January 11, 2019, after successfully completing his jail sentence and his term of community control, appellant filed a motion to seal his burglary conviction with the trial court. In his motion, appellant noted that he had “led a law abiding life and been a productive member of society.” Appellant went on to insist that the conduct that gave rise to his burglary conviction was “not representative of the person that he is and has been for well over 7 years since this conviction.”
{¶ 4} On January 23, 2019, the state filed its response to appellant‘s motion, in which the state acknowledged that appellant has not had any subsequent criminal convictions and therefore meets the statutory definition of an “eligible offender” under
{¶ 5} Thereafter, the trial court set the matter for a “non-oral hearing” on February 7, 2019. In its scheduling order, the trial court indicated that “[c]ounsel and parties are not required to attend non-oral hearings.”
{¶ 6} On February 12, 2019, the trial court issued its decision on appellant‘s motion, the entirety which reads as follows:
This matter is before the court on Defendant‘s Motion to Seal Criminal Conviction.
The Defendant was convicted of Burglary where a weapon was involved and threat of harm was made.
Based upon these facts, the Court finds that it is not currently in the public interest to grant the Defendant‘s request.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that Defendant‘s Motion to Seal Criminal Conviction is denied.
{¶ 7} Following the trial court‘s denial of his motion, appellant filed his timely notice of appeal.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} On appeal, appellant assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying appellant‘s motion to seal his criminal conviction.
II. Analysis
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to seal his burglary conviction.
{¶ 10} “Expungement of a criminal record is an ‘act of grace created by the state.‘” State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 2013-Ohio-4010, 998 N.E.2d 401, ¶ 12,
{¶ 11} Under
(B) Upon the filing of an application under this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case of the hearing 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 for believing a denial of the application is justified. The court shall direct
its regular probation officer, a state probation officer, or the department of probation of the county in which the applicant resides to make inquiries and written reports as the court requires concerning the applicant. * * * (C)(1) The court shall do each of the following:
(a) Determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender * * *.
(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant;
(c) If the applicant is an eligible offender who applies pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section, determine whether the applicant has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court;
(d) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with division (B) of this section, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the objection;
(e) Weigh the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining to the applicant‘s conviction or bail forfeiture sealed against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records.
(2) If the court determines, after complying with division (C)(1) of this section, that the applicant is an eligible offender * * *, that no criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant, and that the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining to the applicant‘s conviction * * * sealed are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to
maintain those records, and that the rehabilitation of an applicant who is an eligible offender applying pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section has been attained to the satisfaction of the court, the court * * * shall order all official records of the case that pertain to the conviction * * * sealed and * * * all index references to the case that pertain to the conviction or bail forfeiture deleted * * *.
{¶ 12} Here, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion without holding a hearing or complying with the requirements set forth in
{¶ 13} In response, the state leans heavily on the abuse of discretion standard, insisting that the trial court “did not abuse its significant latitude for discretion, because it decided that the state‘s interest outweighed that of the Appellant‘s, pursuant to
{¶ 14} We begin our analysis by examining appellant‘s passing reference to the trial court‘s failure to hold a hearing before rendering its decision on the motion to seal. The Supreme Court of Ohio has articulated that the purpose of an expungement hearing
{¶ 15} Ohio courts have found that “once an offender files an application to seal his records under
{¶ 16} In this case, the trial court denied appellant‘s motion without holding an oral hearing. The trial court‘s “non-oral hearing” is not a sufficient replacement for the oral hearing required under
{¶ 17} Appellant suggests that the trial court denied his motion merely based upon the nature of the offense for which he was convicted. Appellant‘s position is supported by the minimal language in the trial court‘s decision, which merely recites the fact that appellant “was convicted of Burglary where a weapon was involved and threat of harm was made.” Courts have held that a trial court “cannot categorically deny an application for expungement based solely on the nature of the offense.” In re Fuller, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-579, 2011-Ohio-6673, ¶ 12, citing State v. Bates, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 03-COA-057, 2004-Ohio-2260, ¶ 26 (cannot deny an application for expungement
{¶ 18} Because the trial court failed to hold an oral hearing in this case or to make the findings required under
III. Conclusion
{¶ 19} Having found that the trial court erred below, we reverse the trial court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to seal criminal conviction, and we remand this matter to the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall make a decision on appellant‘s motion after conducting an oral hearing in compliance with
{¶ 20} The state is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment reversed and remanded.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.