State v. Boddie, 87538.
| Citation | 868 N.E.2d 699,170 Ohio App.3d 590,2007 Ohio 626 |
| Decision Date | 15 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 87538.,87538. |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BODDIE, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
{¶ 1} In this appeal, the state of Ohio appeals from the order of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that granted defendant-appellee Brian Boddie's application for expungement and sealed his conviction records pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. The state argues that the trial court erred in granting the application for expungement without a hearing and, further, that Boddie was not eligible for expungement because he was not a first offender. We reverse the decision and remand the cause.
{¶ 2} On December 1, 2005, the trial court entered an order granting Boddie's application for expungement and ordering that records regarding his conviction for drug abuse be sealed. The trial court did not hold a hearing prior to granting the expungement application.
{¶ 3} In its first assignment of error, the state contends that the trial court erred by granting the application without first holding a hearing.
{¶ 4} R.C. 2953.32(B) provides that "[u]pon the filing of an application under this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case of the hearing on the application." The requirement of a hearing is mandatory, and each application for expungement must be set for hearing. State v. Minch, Cuyahoga App. No. 87820, 2007-Ohio-158, 2007 WL 117497; State v. Poston, Cuyahoga App. No. 87216, 2006-Ohio-4125, 2006 WL 2322859; State v. Powers, Cuyahoga App. No. 84416, 2004-Ohio-7021, 2004 WL 2979951; State v. Saltzer (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 394, 395, 14 OBR 500, 471 N.E.2d 872. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the application for expungement without first holding a hearing.
{¶ 5} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with R.C. 2953.32.
{¶ 6} In its second assignment of error, the state contends that the trial court erred in granting Boddie's application for expungement and ordering that records regarding his drug-abuse conviction be sealed because he has another conviction.
{¶ 7} R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) provides that a first offender may apply to the sentencing court for sealing the conviction record. "First offender" is defined in R.C. 2953.31(A) as "anyone who has been convicted of an offense in this state or any other jurisdiction and who previously or subsequently has not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any other jurisdiction." The state argues that Boddie is not a first offender and is therefore not eligible for an expungement, because he has subsequent misdemeanor convictions for drug abuse and possession of an open container in the city of Cleveland. We find nothing whatsoever in the record, however, to support the state's contention.
{¶ 8} Additionally, we remind the state that "expungement is an act of grace created by the state." State v. Hamilton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639, 665 N.E.2d 669. State v. Haas, Lucas App. No. L-04-1315, 2005-Ohio-4350, 2005 WL 2007886, at ¶ 8. Boddie may perhaps be one of those people.
{¶ 9} We note further that whether to prosecute and what charges to file are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aguirre
... ... Aguirre, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP415, 2013-Ohio-768, 2013 WL 816547, 12, citing State v. Boddie, 170 Ohio App.3d 590, 2007-Ohio-626, 868 N.E.2d 699, 8 (8th Dist.). Second, it noted that the creditor retains the same remedies it had "for collection of unpaid restitution * * * under R.C. 2929.28." Id. at 14; see also id. at 16, 18. Third, the appellate court concluded that "denying ... ...
-
State v. Barrett
... ... This argument incorrectly assumes that an offender's prospects for rehabilitation would necessarily rule out a prison term. State v. Gilmer, 6th Dist. No. OT05028, 2005-Ohio-6435, 2005 WL 3293774, 7. { 32} Rehabilitation has lost favor in the criminal justice system. State v. Boddie, 170 Ohio App.3d 590, 2007-Ohio-626, 868 N.E.2d 699, 8 (8th Dist.). Under the rehabilitative theory of sentencing, the courts had broad discretion to order indeterminate sentences and early release based on the change shown by an offender during confinement. This was replaced with a more punitive ... ...
-
State v. S.J.
... ... The enactment and amendment of R.C. 2953.31 and 2953.32 is, in a way, a manifestation of the traditional Western civilization concepts of sin, punishment, atonement, and forgiveness. " State v. M.D. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92534, 2009-Ohio-5694 [2009 WL 3478517], 8, quoting State v. Boddie , 170 Ohio App.3d 590, 2007-Ohio-626, 868 N.E.2d 699, 8 (8th Dist.). State v. M.H. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105589, 2018-Ohio-582, 2018 WL 898922, 10. { 10} Also," [e]xpungement is an act of grace created by the state, and so is a privilege, not a right." State v. Simon , 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533, ... ...
-
State v. K.S.
... ... The enactment and amendment of R.C. 2953.31 and 2953.32 is, in a way, a manifestation of the traditional Western civilization concepts of sin, punishment, atonement, and forgiveness."' State v. M.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92534, 2009-Ohio-5694, 8, quoting State v. Boddie, 170 Ohio App.3d 590, 2007-Ohio-626, 868 N.E.2d 699, 8 (8th Dist.).{ 9} "'Expungement is an act of grace created by the state,' and so it is a privilege, not a right." State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533, 721 N.E.2d 1041 (2000), quoting State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 665 N.E.2d 669 ... ...