expungement hearing in Ohio

2015Many Ohio courts have found that “once an offender files an application to seal his records under R.C. 2953.32, a hearing is mandatory.” See e.g., State v. Wright, 191 Ohio App.3d 647 , 2010-Ohio-6259 , 947 N.E.2d 246, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.); State v. Saltzer, 14 Ohio App.3d 394, 395 , 471 N.E.2d 872 (8th Dist.1984).

2004(R.C. 2953.32 (B); State v. Hamilton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 363 [sic], State v. Saltzer (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 394 , followed." We agree. {¶ 10} R.C. 2953.32 (B) provides in part: "Upon the filing of an application under § 2953.32 (B), the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case of the hearing on the application." Further, in State v. Hamilton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 636 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that "it is apparent from a study of R.C. 2953.32 that the essential purpose of an expungement hearing is to provide a reviewing court with all relevant i

2013No. 96574, 2011-Ohio-5675 , a panel of this 2 court departed from our long line of cases and held that an expungement hearing is not necessary where the state raises purely an issue of law when opposing the application for expungement.

2012No. 96574, 2011-Ohio-5675 , in a departure from our long line of cases holding that an expungement hearing is mandatory upon an application to seal the record, this court held that a hearing is not necessary where the state raises purely an issue of law in opposition to the motion for expungement.

2023No. 20AP-218, 2020-Ohio-6697, ¶ 11 , quoting Marok v. Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist.

2023Advocacy is subordinated to information gathering.”); State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533 , 721 N.E.2d 1041 (2000). {¶7} Whether an offender is statutorily eligible is a threshold question of law that depends upon the particular facts of the case.

2019Wood No. WD-14-059, 2015-Ohio-3517 (finding that the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing in an expungement hearing in which the defendant’s eligibility was in dispute constitutes reversible error); State v. Wright, 191 Ohio App.3d 647 , 2010-Ohio- 6259, 947 N.E.2d 246, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.) (“once an offender files an application to seal his records under R .C. 2953.32, a hearing is mandatory”); State v. D.L., 2d Dist.

2013Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, 118 Ohio St.3d 226 , 2008-Ohio-2012 , 887 N.E.2d 1167 , ¶ 8. {¶19} Novak was not harmed by Camino’s failure to appear at the expungement hearing.

2011R.C. 2953.32(B) states that, “[u]pon 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.” Usually, “[t]he word ‘shall’ is * * * interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory.” State v. Smith, Stark App. No. 2010-CA-00335, 2011-Ohio-3206, at ¶48 .

2008State v. Proffitt , Franklin App. No. 06AP-363, 2006-Ohio-6642 , at ¶ 3, citing State v. Bissantz (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 120 , 121 .

2008State v. Proffitt , Franklin App. No. 06AP-363, 2006-Ohio-6642 , at ¶ 3, citing State v. Bissantz (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 120 , 121 .

2007"There is no burden upon the state other than to object to an application for expungement where appropriate." State v. Reed , Franklin App. No. 05AP-335, 2005-Ohio-6251 , ¶ 13 . {¶ 9} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.32 (A)(1), under certain circumstances, a "first offender" may apply to the sentencing court for sealing of a conviction record.

2006No. 05AP-355, 2005-Ohio-6891 , ¶ 7 . {¶ 7} The applicant must meet the statutory eligibility criteria in order to invoke the court's jurisdiction to expunge a conviction.

2005"As a result, an order expunging the record of one `who is not a first offender is void for lack of jurisdiction and may be vacated at any time.'" McCoy, at ¶ 11, citing Winship, citing State v. Thomas (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 141 , 145 .

2005"An expungement proceeding is not an adversarial one; the primary purpose of an expungement hearing is to gather information." Simon, at 533, citing Hamilton , at 640. {¶ 8} "The statutory law in effect at the time of the filing of an R.C. 2953.32 application to seal a record of conviction is controlling." State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2003Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cissel, 99 Ohio St.3d 1433 , 789 N.E.2d 1115 , 2003-Ohio-2902 . {¶ 9} On November 26, 2002, in response to the parties' objections and relator's motion to amend the complaint and add a cause of action, we granted relator's motion and recommitted the case to the magistrate with instructions to file a supplemental magistrate's report on the issues of personal jurisdiction in the expungement hearing and the issues raised by Cincinnati Enquirer I.

2003Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cissel, 99 Ohio St.3d 1433 , 789 N.E.2d 1115 , 2003-Ohio-2902 . {¶ 9} On November 26, 2002, in response to the parties' objections and relator's motion to amend the complaint and add a cause of action, we granted relator's motion and recommitted the case to the magistrate with instructions to file a supplemental magistrate's report on the issues of personal jurisdiction in the expungement hearing and the issues raised by Cincinnati Enquirer I.

2002In that case, we stated: The state relies on State v. Sandlin (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 165 , 168 , 712 N.E.2d 740 , wherein the court stated that "a conviction of DUI always bars expungement of the record of a conviction for another criminal offense." (Emphasis added.) However, during the expungement hearing, the state failed to present a certified journal entry of conviction or otherwise demonstrate that Chalmers had been convicted on the DUI charge .

2002In that case, we stated: The state relies on State v. Sandlin (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 165 , 168 , 712 N.E.2d 740 , wherein the court stated that "a conviction of DUI always bars expungement of the record of a conviction for another criminal offense." (Emphasis added.) However, during the expungement hearing, the state failed to present a certified journal entry of conviction or otherwise demonstrate that Chalmers had been convicted on the DUI charge .