date set hearing in Ohio

2008The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons he believes justify a denial of the application." State v. Hamilton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 636 ; State v. Saltzer (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 394 . {¶ 9} In the case at bar, the lower court failed to hold a hearing as required by R.C. 2953.32 (B).

2007State v. Saltzer (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 394, 395 , 14 OBR 500, 471 N.E.2d 872 .

2023"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." Id. {¶ 11} R.C. 2953.31 defines who is an eligible offender.

2021The Ohio Supreme Court has held otherwise. {¶ 14} In State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 , 665 N.E.2d 669 (1996), David Hamilton was convicted of theft, and after waiting the requisite amount of time according to the statute, he applied to have the record of his conviction sealed.

2023The prosecutor may object to the granting of the application by filing with the court, prior to the date set for the hearing, an objection specifying the reasons that would justify a denial of the application Id.

2019Id.

2018Pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.52(B)(1), 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." In the absence of a written objection to an application, the "trial court still must weigh the interests of the applicant against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain the records." State v. Crews , 179 Ohio App.3d 521 , 2008-Ohio-6230 , 902 N.E.2d 566 , ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). {¶ 20} Crim.

2018Pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.52(B)(1), 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." In the absence of a written objection to an application, the "trial court still must weigh the interests of the applicant against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain the records." State v. Crews , 179 Ohio App.3d 521 , 2008-Ohio-6230 , 902 N.E.2d 566 , ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). {¶ 20} Crim.

2018R. 52(A) provides: "Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." As noted by the Supreme Court of Ohio: " * * * Under the harmless-error standard of review, 'the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.' (Emphasis sic.)" State v. Harris , 142 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2015-Ohio-166 , 28 N.E.3d 1256 , ¶ 36, quoting State v. Perry , 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 , ¶ 15.

2018R. 52(A) provides: "Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." As noted by the Supreme Court of Ohio: " * * * Under the harmless-error standard of review, 'the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.' (Emphasis sic.)" State v. Harris , 142 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2015-Ohio-166 , 28 N.E.3d 1256 , ¶ 36, quoting State v. Perry , 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 , ¶ 15.

2018R. 52(A) provides: "Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." As noted by the Supreme Court of Ohio: " * * * Under the harmless-error standard of review, 'the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.' (Emphasis sic.)" State v. Harris , 142 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2015-Ohio-166 , 28 N.E.3d 1256 , ¶ 36, quoting State v. Perry , 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 , ¶ 15.

2018R. 52(A) provides: "Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded." As noted by the Supreme Court of Ohio: " * * * Under the harmless-error standard of review, 'the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.' (Emphasis sic.)" State v. Harris , 142 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2015-Ohio-166 , 28 N.E.3d 1256 , ¶ 36, quoting State v. Perry , 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643 , ¶ 15.

2011Id. {¶ 9} R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) provides: “Except as provided in section 2953.61 of the Revised Code, a first offender may apply to the sentencing court * * * for the sealing of the conviction record.” R.C. 2953.32(B) further provides: “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” on the application. {¶ 10} In Dayton v. Salmon (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 671, 674 , 671 N.E.2d 599 , we stated: {¶ 11} “R.C. 2953.32(B) requires a court to which an application is made to seal the records of a criminal case to set

2011Id. {¶ 9} R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) provides: “Except as provided in section 2953.61 of the Revised Code, a first offender may apply to the sentencing court * * * for the sealing of the conviction record.” R.C. 2953.32(B) further provides: “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” on the application. {¶ 10} In Dayton v. Salmon (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 671, 674 , 671 N.E.2d 599 , we stated: {¶ 11} “R.C. 2953.32(B) requires a court to which an application is made to seal the records of a criminal case to set

2011Id. {¶ 9} R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) provides: “Except as provided in section 2953.61 of the Revised Code, a first offender may apply to the sentencing court * * * for the sealing of the conviction record.” R.C. 2953.32(B) further provides: “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” on the application. {¶ 10} In Dayton v. Salmon (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 671, 674 , 671 N.E.2d 599 , we stated: {¶ 11} “R.C. 2953.32(B) requires a court to which an application is made to seal the records of a criminal case to set

2005Any person with an interest in the estate may file exceptions to the inventory "at any time prior to five days before the date set for the hearing or the date to which the hearing has been continued." Id.

2002Freeman v. Morris (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 458 , that written notice of the date set for hearing of a motion for summary judgment is not necessary.

2001The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons he believes justify a denial of the application. {¶11} “(2) The court shall do each of the following: *448 {¶12} “(a) Determine whether * * * a no bill was returned in the case and a period of two years or a longer period as required by section 2953.61 of the Revised Code has expired from the date of the report to the court of that no bill by the foreman or deputy foreman of the grand jury; {¶13} “(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the person; {¶14} “(c) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance

2001The prosecutor shall specify in the objection the reasons he believes justify a denial of the application. {¶11} “(2) The court shall do each of the following: *448 {¶12} “(a) Determine whether * * * a no bill was returned in the case and a period of two years or a longer period as required by section 2953.61 of the Revised Code has expired from the date of the report to the court of that no bill by the foreman or deputy foreman of the grand jury; {¶13} “(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the person; {¶14} “(c) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance