State of Ohio v. Walter L. Hooks
No. 15AP-522
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
May 24, 2016
2016-Ohio-3138
BROWN, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State of Ohio, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
v. : No. 15AP-522
Walter L. Hooks, : (C.P.C. No. 15EP-50)
Defendant-Appellee. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on May 24, 2016
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara A. Farnbacher, for appellant. Argued: Barbara A. Farnbacher.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
BROWN, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio, from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting an application for expungement filed by defendant-appellee, Walter L. Hooks.
{¶ 2} On September 19, 2013, appellee was indicted on one count of patient abuse, in violation of
{¶ 3} On January 22, 2015, appellee filed a pro se application for an order sealing the record pursuant to
{¶ 4} The matter came for hearing before the trial court on April 29, 2015. The transcript of the hearing indicates that appellee did not appear for the hearing. Specifically, the trial court noted on the record: “Unfortunately, the defendant is not here. But having these things with a record just by it‘s [sic] very nature is detrimental to individuals. I will take my chances with the prosecutor‘s office and grant it.” (Tr. 2.) On April 30, 2015, the trial court filed an entry sealing appellеe‘s record pursuant to
{¶ 5} On appeal, the state sets forth the following single assignment of error for this court‘s review:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING AN APPLICATION TO SEAL A RECORD WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS INTEREST WAS EQUAL TO OR OUTWEIGHED THE GOVERNMENT‘S INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE RECORD.
{¶ 6} Under its single assignment of error, the state asserts the trial court erred in granting appellee‘s appliсation to seal a record under
{¶ 7} Pursuant to the provisions of
{¶ 8}
(A)(1) Any person, who is found not guilty of an offense by a jury or a court or who is the defendant named in a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, may apply to the court for an order to seal the person‘s official records in the case.
* * *
(B)(1) Upon the filing of an application pursuant to division (A) of this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor in 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 the prosecutor believes justify a denial of the application.
(2) The court shall do each of the following, except as provided in division (B)(3) of this section:
(a)(i) Determine whether the person was found not guilty in the cаse * * *;
(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 exрired;
(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 objection;
(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.
{¶ 9} Thus, upon the filing of a request for the sealing of records, ”
{¶ 10} Further, in considering an application under
{¶ 11} In the present case, appellee‘s memorandum in support of the application stated in part: “No criminal proceedings are pending against applicant. A dismissal of the former complaint or a finding of not guilty has been journalized by the court in the prior case[.] All other factors listed in
{¶ 12} This court has previously held that “merely reciting the statutory requirements is insufficient to satisfy a defendаnt‘s burden to establish their interest in having the records of the case sealed.” Wilson at ¶ 17. In Wilson, this court held that where the defendant “did not appear at the hearing, or otherwise present any evidence to demonstrate his interest in hаving the record of the no bill sealed, there is no evidence in the record to establish defendant‘s interest.” Id. We concluded, therefore, that the defendant “failed to meet his burden under
{¶ 13} Based on precedent of this court, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when it grants an application tо seal a criminal record without sufficient information to support the trial court‘s findings.” State v. Draper, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-791, 2015-Ohio-1781, ¶ 10, citing Wilson at ¶ 15, State v. Porter, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-158, 2014-Ohio-4068, ¶ 12-14, and State v. Suel, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1158, 2003-Ohio-3299, ¶ 14.
{¶ 14} In the present case, appellee failed to “present testimony or any evidence” to demonstrate his interest in having his recоrd sealed. Draper at ¶ 12. Rather, appellee “merely provided an application stating that [he] qualified for a sealing of records under
{¶ 15} The trial court appears to have recognized appellee did not meet his burden of providing sufficient information to demonstrate a need for sealing the record, as the court noted at the hearing that it would “take [its] chances with the prosecutor‘s office and grant [the application].” (Tr. 2.) However, because the trial court was “obligated to balance appellee‘s interests in having the record sealed against the government‘s interests in maintaining the record, and appellee did not рut forth any evidence to establish [his] interests, the trial court abused its discretion” in granting the application. Porter at ¶ 14. See also Draper at ¶ 13 (“Because appellee failed to meet her burden under
{¶ 16} Accordingly, the state‘s assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the state‘s single assignment of error is sustained, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
DORRIAN, P.J., concurs.
TYACK, J., dissents.
TYACK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 18} Walter Hooks was found not guilty of patient abuse following a bench trial in 2014. The same judge who heard the evidence in 2014 was later asked to seal the record as authorized by
{¶ 19} I think the trial court judge could consider the content of the trial conducted before him and could take judicial notice of the fact that even having been charged with patient abuse as a felony could have a detrimental effect on Hooks.
{¶ 20} The State of Ohio alleges that it had an interest in maintaining the record. Does it reаlly have an interest in demonstrating that it charged an innocent man with a felony?
{¶ 21} In its objection to the application for expungement, the state argued first that the harm to Hooks from his having had to face criminal chargеs is speculative and then argued that prospective employers had a right to know the details of the charges which led to an acquittal. Apparently, the state is maintaining that a charge against a man who was wrоngly accused can be used to deny the man future employment opportunities.
{¶ 22} As an appellate court, we are supposed to use an abuse of discretion standard in evaluating the actions of the trial court in cases such as this. I believe the trial court judge could consider the evidence or lack of evidence presented at the trial. I also
{¶ 23} I respectfully dissent.