State v. Heaton, CA95-04-024
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | WALSH |
| Citation | 108 Ohio App.3d 38,669 N.E.2d 885 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HEATON, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. CA95-04-024,CA95-04-024 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1995 |
Page 38
v.
HEATON, Appellant.
Twelfth District, Clermont County.
[669 N.E.2d 886] Donald W. White, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney and David H. Hoffmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
David S. Welt, Cincinnati, for appellant.
WALSH, Presiding Judge.
Defendant-appellant, Craig Heaton, appeals an order of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to expunge and seal the record of his conviction.
On September 14, 1988, appellant was convicted of gross sexual imposition on a three-year-old child in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(3). Appellant was thereafter sentenced to one year imprisonment in the Ohio State Reformatory. Appellant's sentence was, however, suspended and he was placed on a three-year probation. By entry filed October 28, 1991, appellant was discharged.
On November 16, 1994, appellant filed an application for expungement of record of his conviction. The trial court issued a decision favorable to appellant on February 17, 1995. On March 10, 1995, plaintiff-appellee, the state of Ohio, filed a motion to set aside the trial court's decision on the ground that since December 9, 1994, the date of enactment of amended R.C. 2953.36, the expungement provisions set forth in R.C. 2953.31 et seq. no longer apply to convictions for gross sexual imposition. On March 17, 1995, the trial court granted appellee's motion and denied the application for expungement.
Appellant timely filed this appeal and raises as his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his application for expungement of record. Appellant argues that the retroactive application of amended R.C. 2953.36 to his application for expungement is impermissible because it divests appellant's already vested substantive right of expungement.
Page 40
Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides a limitation that the [669 N.E.2d 887] General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws. Appellant correctly states, however, that the limitation applies only to substantive law and does not apply to remedial law. Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 354, 356, 533 N.E.2d 743, 745. It is well-established law in Ohio that the expungement provisions set forth in R.C. 2953.31 et seq. are remedial in nature. State v. Bissantz (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 120, 121, 30 OBR 434,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hartup, 72379
...expungement under R.C. 2953.32 is discretionary, even if the applicant meets the statutory prerequisites. See State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 40, 669 N.E.2d 885, 886-887; State v. Mastin (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 814, 615 N.E.2d 1084. Because expungement is ultimately discretionary......
-
State v. Lasalle, 2001-1403.
...certified that its decision was in conflict with the decision of the Clermont County Court of Appeals in State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 669 N.E.2d 885. This cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict {¶ 6} The question certified for review by the cour......
-
State v. Shade, Case No. 115,523
...qualifies to petition for the remedy, or privilege, of expungement. Forest Oil, 1990 OK 58, ¶ 11, 807 P.2d 774. See State v. Heaton, 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 669 N.E.2d 885, 887 (1995) ("Expungement is a matter of privilege, never of right.") (citation omitted). See also In re Dyer, 163 S.W.3d 9......
-
State v. Moorehart, 2009 Ohio 2844 (Ohio App. 6/8/2009), 2008-CA-0072.
...has the discretion to deny a request for expungement even if the applicant meets the statutory prerequisites. State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38, 40, 669 N.E.2d 885, 886-887; See also State v. Rose, Delaware App. No. 04-CA-C-04-027, {¶10} R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) sets forth the procedure ......