State v. HillmanState v. Hillman
Rendered on January 28, 2010
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kimberly Bond, for appellee.
Robert L. Hillman, pro se.
APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
CONNOR, J.
{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, defendant-appellant, Robert L. Hillman (“appellant“), appeals from the judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his applications for an order sealing the record regarding multiple criminal charges arising out of five separate cases. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
{¶3} In 2008, appellant filed three separate applications to seal the official records in the cases cited above. The first application was filed November 12, 2008, pursuant to
{¶4} The record indicates a hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2009. Both parties agree that a hearing was held on that date regarding appellant‘s appliсations, although appellant has not provided this court with a transcript of those proceedings. By entry dated April 27, 2009, the trial court denied all three applications for an order sealing the record, pursuant to
{¶5} Appellant then filed a timely appeal in each case, assigning a single error for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION, AND DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, WHEN IT DENIED A[N] APPLICATION FOR EXPUNGEMENT WITHOUT EXPL[A]NATION, AND USED THE WRONG CRITERIA, AND STATUTE.
{¶6}
{¶7} In considering the sealing of the record of a conviction, the trial court must do all of the following: (1) dеtermine whether the applicant is a “first offender“; (2) determine whether there are criminal proceedings pending against the applicant; (3) if the applicant is a first offender, determine whether the applicant has been rehabilitated to the сourt‘s satisfaction; (4) if the prosecutor has filed an objection, consider the reasons against granting the application as specified in the objection; and (5) weigh the interests of the applicant in having the official records sealed against thе legitimate needs of the government to maintain those records, if any.
{¶8}
{¶9} Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his applications because the court failed to cite to the proper statute in its judgment entries, used the wrong criteria in considering the applications, and fаiled to provide an explanation for its decisions. Appellant contends the trial court treated all of his applications as applications for sealing the record pursuant to
{¶10} Appellee argues that because appellant has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings in this matter, appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Appellee submits that without a transcript, this court must presume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial сourt and presume the trial court acted within its discretion. Appellee also argues that appellant is ineligible to seal part of the record in case No. 94CR-4110, since he pled guilty to one of the two offenses for which he was indicted under that case number.
{¶11} A trial court‘s decision to grant or deny a request to seal records is typically reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. However, when a court‘s judgment is based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, an abuse of discretion
{¶12} In the cases sub judice, the trial court filed three separate entries (one for each application) denying appellant‘s requеsts for an order sealing the records. In expungement case No. 08EP-669, which addresses criminal cases 95CR-2298, 95CR-5414, and 03CR-3447, the trial court‘s entry, in its entirety, reads as follows:
This cause came to be heard upon the application, pursuant to Section 2953.32, Ohio Revised Code, for an order sealing the record in Case no: 95CR-2298.
Said application is hereby Denied.
{¶13} The entry does not address the other two cases filed under that application (Nos. 95CR-5414 and 03CR-3447). The remaining two entries involving the applications filed in case Nos. 94CR-4110 and 94CR-3584 contained identical language denying the applications, with the exception of the case number.
{¶14} Appellant‘s applications to seal the official records in four of the five cases were filed pursuant to
{¶16} Despite the lack of a transcript, which potentially could (but may not) reveal that the trial court based its denial of the applications upon the correct statute, we find the journal entries, which are controlling and which reference the incorrect statute, to be error that is recognizable on appeal. Based upon those citations to the incorrect statute, we cannot simply presume the regularity of the proceedings below, despite appellee‘s urgings. In State v. Gilchrist (Dec. 7, 1994), 9th Dist. No. C.A. 16800, the court of appeals found the trial court had erred in denying the dеfendant‘s motion for expungement under
{¶17} We further note that several appellate courts have reversed a trial court‘s decision to deny an application to seal records due to a failure to place the required findings on the record for review. Some have even required those findings to be placed in the journalized judgment entry. In State v. Haas, 6th Dist. No. L-04-1315, 2005-Ohio-4350, the appellate court reversed the trial court‘s denial of the defendant‘s motion to seal a record of conviction where it could not determine, based upon the record, the trial court‘s findings or grounds for denying the application. The appellate court ordered the trial court to conduct another hеaring, to determine the facts as required by statute, and to also express the facts and reasons for its determination in a judgment entry. See also City of Youngstown v. Sims (Oct. 31, 1996), 7th Dist. No. 96 C.A. 26 (After a hearing, the trial judge signed a journal entry which stated “motion for expungement denied.” The trial court‘s judgment was reversed, and the court was ordered to conduct a hearing and determine the facts as required under
{¶18} Based upon the foregoing, we sustain appellant‘s single assignment of error. The judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are hereby vaсated, and these matters are remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a hearing
Judgments vacated; causes remanded.
BROWN and SADLER, JJ., concur.
___________