Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2953 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36 (2026)

[Former R.C. 2953.38, amended and renumbered by S.B. 288, 134th General Assembly, effective 4/4/2023] Expungement of certain convictions for victims of human trafficking

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 24, 2024
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 214 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) Any person who is or was convicted of a violation of section 2907.24, 2907.241, or 2907.25 of the Revised Code may apply to the sentencing court for the expungement of the record of conviction of any offense, other than a record of conviction of a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2907.02 of the Revised Code, the person's participation in which was a result of the person having been a victim of human trafficking.

(2) Any person who is or was convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony of the fourth or fifth degree may apply to the sentencing court for the expungement of the record of conviction of that offense, the person's participation in which was a result of the person having been a victim of human trafficking.

(3) The person may file the application at any time. The application may request an order to expunge the record of conviction for more than one offense, but if it does, the court shall consider the request for each offense separately as if a separate application had been made for each offense and all references in divisions (A) to (G) of this section to "the offense" or "that offense" mean each of those offenses that are the subject of the application. The application shall do all of the following:

(a) Identify the applicant, the offense for which the expungement is sought, the date of the conviction of that offense, and the court in which the conviction occurred;

(b) Describe the evidence and provide copies of any documentation showing that the person is entitled to relief under this section;

(c) Include a request for expungement of the record of conviction of that offense under this section.

(B) The court may deny an application made under division (A) of this section if it finds that the application fails to assert grounds on which relief may be granted.

(C) If the court does not deny an application under division (B) of this section, it shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case from which the record of conviction resulted 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 may 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.

(D)(1) At the hearing held under division (C) of this section, the court shall do both of the following:

(a) If the prosecutor has filed an objection, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the objection;

(b) Determine whether the applicant, for an application submitted under division (A)(1) of this section, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, or for an application submitted under division (A)(2) of this section, has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, that the applicant's participation in the offense that is the subject of the application was a result of the applicant having been a victim of human trafficking.

(2) If the court at the hearing held under division (C) of this section determines that the applicant's participation in the offense that is the subject of the application was a result of the applicant having been a victim of human trafficking and if that subject offense is a felony of the first or second degree, the court at the hearing also shall consider all of the following factors and, upon consideration of the factors, shall determine whether the interests of the applicant in having the record of the conviction of that offense expunged are outweighed by any legitimate needs of the government to maintain that record of conviction:

(a) The degree of duress under which the applicant acted in committing the subject offense, including, but not limited to, the history of the use of force or threatened use of force against the applicant or another person, whether the applicant's judgment or control was impaired by the administration to the applicant of any intoxicant, drug, or controlled substance, and the threat of withholding from the applicant food, water, or any drug;

(b) The seriousness of the subject offense;

(c) The relative degree of physical harm done to any person in the commission of the subject offense;

(d) The length of time that has expired since the commission of the subject offense;

(e) Whether the prosecutor represents to the court that criminal proceedings are likely to still be initiated against the applicant for a felony offense for which the period of limitations has not expired;

(f) Whether the applicant at the time of the hearing is subject to supervision as a result of the subject offense.

(E) If after a hearing held under division (C) of this section the court finds that the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence for an application made under division (A)(1) of this section, or by clear and convincing evidence for an application made under division (A)(2) of this section, that the applicant's participation in the offense that is the subject of the application was the result of the applicant having been a victim of human trafficking, and, if the offense that is the subject of the application is a felony of the first or second degree, after consideration of the factors required under division (D)(2) of this section, it finds that the interests of the applicant in having the record of the conviction of that offense expunged are not outweighed by any legitimate needs of the government to maintain that record of conviction, the court shall grant the application and order that the record of conviction be expunged.

(F)(1) The court shall send notice of the order of expungement issued under division (E) of this section to each public office or agency that the court has reason to believe may have an official record pertaining to the case.

(2) The proceedings in the case that is the subject of an order of expungement issued under division (E) of this section shall be considered not to have occurred and the conviction of the person who is the subject of the proceedings shall be expunged. The record of the conviction shall not be used for any purpose, including, but not limited to, a criminal records check under section 109.572 of the Revised Code. The applicant may, and the court shall, reply that no record exists with respect to the applicant upon any inquiry into the matter.

(G) Upon the filing of an application under this section, the applicant, unless indigent, shall pay a fee of fifty dollars. The court shall pay thirty dollars of the fee into the state treasury and shall pay twenty dollars of the fee into the county general revenue fund.

Last updated August 13, 2024 at 2:47 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 156 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Pariag, 2013 Ohio 4010 (Ohio 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pariag, 2013 Ohio 4010 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 26× “) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-569. ____________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT A trial court is precluded, pursuant to R.”
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St. 3d 178 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 16× “The state based its motion on an amendment to R.C. 2953.36 — specifically, newly enacted subsection (C), which prohibits the sealing of records of first-degree misdemeanor convictions involving offenses of violence, including domestic violence.”
State v. LaSalle, 2002 Ohio 4009 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 16× “The state based its motion on an amendment to R.C. 2953.36—specifically, newly enacted subsection (C), which prohibits the sealing of records of first-degree misdemeanor convictions involving offenses of violence, including domestic violence.”
State v. V.M.D., 2016 Ohio 8090 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 12× “We hold that attempted robbery is a crime of violence and that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.36, a person convicted of that crime is ineligible to have the record of that conviction sealed.”
State v. Futrall, 2009 Ohio 5590 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 10× “32 and one of those convictions is exempt from sealing pursuant to R.C. 2953.36, the trial court may not seal the remaining convictions — Judgment affirmed.”
State v. Puckett, 2021 Ohio 2634 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 23× “31 and whether an offense is precluded from sealing by R.C. 2953.36 are questions of law that are independent of one another and that this court reviews -2- Clermont CA2020-11-065 de novo.”
State v. Davenport, 686 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 32× “* * * sealed are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs , to maintain such records, and that the rehabilitation of an applicant who is a first offender applying pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section has been attained to the satisfaction of the court, the court…”
State v. Widener, 2014 Ohio 333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 21× “Applicants whose conviction falls within any category of R.C. 2953.36 are ‘ineligible’ for expungement.”
State v. A.H., 2019 Ohio 5120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 17× “has largely ignored R.C. 2953.36, which unambiguously establishes that sections 2953.”
State v. Raber, 2014 Ohio 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “01(B)(2) HAS PRECEDENCE OVER O.R.C. 2953.36 AND, THUS, KYLE RABER SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE HIS RECORD EXPUNGED.”
State v. T.S., 2017 Ohio 7395 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “The state filed a brief in opposition to the motion, arguing, inter alia, that under R.C. 2953.36, the trial court was without jurisdiction to seal the conviction for child endangering because the victim of the offense was under 18 years of age.”
State v. Simon, 721 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 6× “35 of the Revised Code do not apply to convictions when the offender is subject to a mandatory prison term * * *.”
Show all 156 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A) — 11 cases
State v. A.H., 2019 Ohio 5120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “has largely ignored R.C. 2953.36, which unambiguously establishes that sections 2953.”
In re K.J., 2014 Ohio 3472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. N.V., 2021 Ohio 3868 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. K.S., 2022 Ohio 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(2) — 18 cases
State v. A.V., 2018 Ohio 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. A.H., 2019 Ohio 5120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “has largely ignored R.C. 2953.36, which unambiguously establishes that sections 2953.”
State v. A.V., 2019 Ohio 1037 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. R.S., 2022 Ohio 1108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. E.A., 2017 Ohio 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(3) — 19 cases
State v. Puckett, 2021 Ohio 2634 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “31 and whether an offense is precluded from sealing by R.C. 2953.36 are questions of law that are independent of one another and that this court reviews -2- Clermont CA2020-11-065 de novo.”
State v. J.B., 2019 Ohio 4659 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. V.M.D., 2016 Ohio 8090 (Ohio 2016). “We hold that attempted robbery is a crime of violence and that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.36, a person convicted of that crime is ineligible to have the record of that conviction sealed.”
State v. Inscho, 2019 Ohio 809 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. J.B., 2025 Ohio 3143 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(4) — 7 cases
State v. T.D., 2022 Ohio 3741 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. G.H., 2023 Ohio 3269 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Weirauch, 2018 Ohio 5001 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Cain, 2024 Ohio 2969 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. A.G., 2021 Ohio 3460 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(6) — 8 cases
State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. A.V., 2019 Ohio 1037 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
State v. T.S., 2017 Ohio 7395 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “The state filed a brief in opposition to the motion, arguing, inter alia, that under R.C. 2953.36, the trial court was without jurisdiction to seal the conviction for child endangering because the victim of the offense was under 18 years of age.”
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(7) — 8 cases
State v. G.K., 2020 Ohio 5083 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. K.S., 2022 Ohio 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Q.M.E., 2022 Ohio 1745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(A)(8) — 4 cases
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1016 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
In re Application of Davis, 2023 Ohio 161 (Ohio 2023).
State v. McLandrich, 2021 Ohio 1015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Zollnger, 2016 Ohio 8369 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(B) — 17 cases
State v. Raber, 2014 Ohio 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “01(B)(2) HAS PRECEDENCE OVER O.R.C. 2953.36 AND, THUS, KYLE RABER SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE HIS RECORD EXPUNGED.”
State v. Pariag, 2013 Ohio 4010 (Ohio 2013). “) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-569. ____________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT A trial court is precluded, pursuant to R.”
State v. Puckett, 2021 Ohio 2634 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “31 and whether an offense is precluded from sealing by R.C. 2953.36 are questions of law that are independent of one another and that this court reviews -2- Clermont CA2020-11-065 de novo.”
In re K.J., 2014 Ohio 3472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. C.A., 2015 Ohio 3437 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(C) — 25 cases
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St. 3d 178 (Ohio 2002). “The state based its motion on an amendment to R.C. 2953.36 — specifically, newly enacted subsection (C), which prohibits the sealing of records of first-degree misdemeanor convictions involving offenses of violence, including domestic violence.”
State v. LaSalle, 2002 Ohio 4009 (Ohio 2002). “The state based its motion on an amendment to R.C. 2953.36—specifically, newly enacted subsection (C), which prohibits the sealing of records of first-degree misdemeanor convictions involving offenses of violence, including domestic violence.”
State v. V.M.D., 2016 Ohio 8090 (Ohio 2016). “We hold that attempted robbery is a crime of violence and that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.36, a person convicted of that crime is ineligible to have the record of that conviction sealed.”
State v. Futrall, 2009 Ohio 5590 (Ohio 2009). “32 and one of those convictions is exempt from sealing pursuant to R.C. 2953.36, the trial court may not seal the remaining convictions — Judgment affirmed.”
City of Euclid v. El-Zant, 758 N.E.2d 700 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(D) — 8 cases
State v. Ritchie, 883 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
State v. A.S., 2014 Ohio 2187 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Hill, 2016 Ohio 1551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
City of Dayton v. P.D., 778 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Hann, 880 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(E) — 2 cases
State v. Widener, 2014 Ohio 333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Applicants whose conviction falls within any category of R.C. 2953.36 are ‘ineligible’ for expungement.”
State v. Moreland, 2015 Ohio 5386 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(F) — 11 cases
State v. T.S., 2017 Ohio 7395 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “The state filed a brief in opposition to the motion, arguing, inter alia, that under R.C. 2953.36, the trial court was without jurisdiction to seal the conviction for child endangering because the victim of the offense was under 18 years of age.”
State v. A.S., 2014 Ohio 2187 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Widener, 2014 Ohio 333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Applicants whose conviction falls within any category of R.C. 2953.36 are ‘ineligible’ for expungement.”
State v. Hill, 2016 Ohio 1551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Sager, 2019 Ohio 135 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.36(G) — 1 case
State v. A.V., 2018 Ohio 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.