City of Willowick v. Langford

• Decision Date: 02 April 1984
• Citation: 15 OBR 55,15 Ohio App.3d 33,472 N.E.2d 387
• Parties: , 15 O.B.R. 55 CITY OF WILLOWICK, Appellee, v. LANGFORD, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 33

15 Ohio App.3d 33

472 N.E.2d 387, 15 O.B.R. 55

CITY OF WILLOWICK, Appellee, v. LANGFORD, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County.

April 2, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

A person is not finally discharged within the meaning of R.C. 2953.32(A) for purposes of filing a motion for the sealing of the record of his conviction of a misdemeanor charge until he has served any sentence previously imposed or otherwise been finally discharged by the court.

T. Michael Billson, City Prosecutor, for appellee.

Joan K. Pellegrin, Lakewood, for appellant.

COOK, Presiding Judge.

On February 11, 1983, appellant, Vicki Corley Langford, filed a motion in the Willoughby Municipal Court to expunge the record of her conviction in said court in March 1981 for misuse of a credit card. The prosecutor for the city of Willowick filed a reply to the motion in which he stated he had no objection to appellant's motion.

A hearing was held on the motion during which it was disclosed that appellant, at the time of her sentencing, had been fined five hundred dollars and given six months in jail with two hundred fifty dollars of the fine and all but twelve days of the jail time suspended. She was also placed on probation for six months. It was further disclosed she had paid the fine and successfully completed her six months of probation, but she had not served the twelve days in jail. Apparently, an acting judge had granted a stay as to the twelve days in jail pending completion of her probation because she was pregnant at the time of sentencing.

The trial court stated she was not eligible for expungement until she had served the twelve days. The court denied appellant's motion for expungement.

Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court and has filed the following three assignments of error:

"1. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of petitioner-appellant in denying her Motion to Expunge Records where the facts showed total compliance with Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.32.

"2. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of petitioner-appellant in denying the Motion to Expunge Records filed by petitioner-appellant where the Municipality, represented by the prosecutor and probation officer, informed the Court that the terms of probation had been complied with and that there was no objection to the granting of said Motion.

"3. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of petitioner-appellant by abusing its discretion in finding that grounds did not exist for the granting of said Motion."

The assigned errors are without merit.

R.C. 2953.32, in pertinent part, provides:

"(A) A...