[Former R.C. 2953.56, renumbered by S.B. 288, 134th General Assembly, effective 4/4/2023] Violations of R.C. 2953.31 to 2953.61 not basis to exclude or suppress certain evidence
Violations of sections 2953.31 to 2953.61 of the Revised Code shall not provide the basis to exclude or suppress any of the following evidence that is otherwise admissible in a criminal proceeding, delinquent child proceeding, or other legal proceeding:
(A) DNA records collected in the DNA database;
(B) Fingerprints filed for record by the superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation;
(C) Other evidence that was obtained or discovered as the direct or indirect result of divulging or otherwise using the records described in divisions (A) and (B) of this section.
State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 4603 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 2ד{¶ 10} McKenney made monthly payments to the insurance company, and when she applied for sealing of her record on October 15, 1999, she had paid half Expungement results in deletion, making all case records “permanently irretrievable,” R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply…”
State v. Radcliff (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 235 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 2ד2: Though the Tenth District repeatedly referred to the process at issue in this case as “expungement,” we note that expungement is a separate process from sealing a conviction record.”
State v. Singo, 2014 Ohio 5335 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14דSpecifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. R.S., 2022 Ohio 1108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Expungement is an entirely separate process governed by R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), “which results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable.”
State v. McCreery, 2012 Ohio 5656 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11ד{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
State v. T.M., 2014 Ohio 5688 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “See R.C. 2953.37(A)(1). R.C. 2953.31(A).6 {¶15} Also, the movant must wait either three years for a felony conviction or one year for a misdemeanor conviction from the date of “final discharge” to apply for sealing.”
State v. T.J.D., 2020 Ohio 3745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Unlike expungement, which “results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1),” sealing a record of conviction “simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
State v. Bailey, 2015 Ohio 3791 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “Expungement results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
C.S. v. M.S., 2021 Ohio 1943 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “32; R.C. 2953.37; R.C. 5122.01(R). Courts must remain mindful of this difference in using these terms and applying the remedies as set forth in the applicable statute.”
State v. Luqman, 2012 Ohio 5057 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דd of, was convicted of, pleads guilty to, or has pleaded guilty to a violation of division (E) of this section as it existed prior to the effective date of this amendment and if the conduct that was the basis of the violation no longer would be a violation of division (E) of…”
State v. K.W., 2024 Ohio 1778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “25827, 2014-Ohio-4247 , ¶ 11, referencing former R.C. 2953.37(A)(1) and 2953.38(A)(1). “Sealing, to the contrary, does not require the destruction of the records but limits access to the records to specific persons/entities.”
State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 4603 (Ohio 2014). “{¶ 10} McKenney made monthly payments to the insurance company, and when she applied for sealing of her record on October 15, 1999, she had paid half Expungement results in deletion, making all case records “permanently irretrievable,” R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), while sealing simply…”
State v. Radcliff (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 235 (Ohio 2015). “2: Though the Tenth District repeatedly referred to the process at issue in this case as “expungement,” we note that expungement is a separate process from sealing a conviction record.”
State v. R.S., 2022 Ohio 1108 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Expungement is an entirely separate process governed by R.C. 2953.37(A)(1), “which results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable.”
State v. T.M., 2014 Ohio 5688 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “See R.C. 2953.37(A)(1). R.C. 2953.31(A).6 {¶15} Also, the movant must wait either three years for a felony conviction or one year for a misdemeanor conviction from the date of “final discharge” to apply for sealing.”
State v. T.J.D., 2020 Ohio 3745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Unlike expungement, which “results in deletion, making all case records ‘permanently irretrievable,’ R.C. 2953.37(A)(1),” sealing a record of conviction “simply provides a shield from the public’s gaze.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(B) — 2 cases
State v. Singo, 2014 Ohio 5335 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. McCreery, 2012 Ohio 5656 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(C) — 2 cases
State v. Singo, 2014 Ohio 5335 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
State v. McCreery, 2012 Ohio 5656 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.37(D)(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. McCreery, 2012 Ohio 5656 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶3} On December 27, 2011, McCreery filed a motion to expunge his conviction pursuant to R.C. 2953.37. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the conduct underlying the conviction was still a violation under R.”
State v. Singo, 2014 Ohio 5335 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Specifically, he argues that the court: (1) failed to comply with the mandates of R.C. 2953.37; (2) erred by relying on facts that did not form the basis of his conviction; and (3) violated his due process rights by not affording him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the…”
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.