State v. Barnett, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2001)
State v. Barnett, Unpublished Decision (5-24-2001)
Opinion of the Court
The State of Ohio appeals from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court granting Jeffrey Barnett's motion for expungement in connection with his conviction for aggravated assault. The State complains the court failed to conduct a hearing and Mr. Barnett is not entitled to have his record sealed pursuant to R.C.
The record reveals a grand jury indicted Mr. Barnett on one count each of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C.
I. A TRIAL COURT ERRS IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR EXPUNGEMENT FILED PURSUANT TO R.C.
2953.32 WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING A HEARING. (R.C.2953.32 (B), STATE V. HAMILTON (1996), 75 OHIO ST.3d 363, STATE V. SALTZER (1984), 14 OHIO APP.3d 394, FOLLOWED).II. A TRIAL COURT ERRS IN GRANTING A MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD OF CONVICTION WHEN IT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT SAID MOTION TO AN APPLICANT WHO WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE, NOT ALLOWED BY R.C.
2953.36 .
The State argues that the court failed to conduct a hearing on Mr. Barnett's motion for expungement and then erroneously granted it. Mr. Barnett maintains that the State failed to file any objections to his motion, thereby waiving any right to raise the issue on appeal, and that the court properly granted his motion.
Since the second assignment of error is dispositive in this case, we move directly to the issue of whether the court properly granted the motion for expungement. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
We begin by noting R.C.
(A)(1) Except as provided in section
2953.61 of the Revised Code, a first offender may apply to the sentencing court if convicted in this state, * * *, for the sealing of the conviction record. Application may be made at the expiration of three years after the offender's final discharge if convicted of a felony, or at the expiration of one year after the offender's final discharge if convicted of a misdemeanor.
* * *
(2) If the court determines, after complying with division (C)(1) of this section, that the applicant is a first offender * * *, that no criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant, and that the interests of the applicant in having the records pertaining to the applicant's conviction * * * are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to maintain those 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, except as provided in division (G) of this section, shall order all official records pertaining to the case sealed * * *.
However, R.C.
(C) Convictions of an offense of violence when the offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree or a felony and when the offense is not a violation of section
2917.03 of the Revised Code and is not a violation of section2903.13 ,2917.01 or2917.31 of the Revised Code that is a misdemeanor of the first degree;
R.C.
In the instant case, we note the court convicted Mr. Barnett of aggravated assault in violation of R.C.
Judgment reversed.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee its costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J., and TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.