State v. Leers, 63615

Decision Date28 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. 63615,63615
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. LEERS, Appellee.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Pros. Atty., and L. Christopher Frey, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellant.

Richard D. McClure, Cleveland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The state of Ohio appeals from a judgment entered by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas expunging a prior criminal conviction of defendant-appellee, Robert Leers. The state claims that the trial court erred in granting expungement because the defendant was convicted of a non-probationable offense and was ineligible to have his record sealed pursuant to R.C. 2953.36. We agree. For the reasons which follow, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

On December 15, 1986, the defendant was arrested in an undercover operation and was subsequently indicted for the sale of marijuana in a quantity equal to or exceeding three times the bulk amount (R.C. 2925.03[A] ); permitting the use of a motor vehicle in a felony drug offense (R.C. 2925.13); possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24); and possession of cocaine less than the bulk amount (R.C. 2925.11).

On May 12, 1987, the defendant pled guilty to the first two counts of the indictment and the trial court sentenced him to a term of two to fifteen years, with six months' actual incarceration on count one and six months on count two, to be served concurrently with count one. The defendant served his sentence and completed his probationary period on December 19, 1988. On January 22, 1992 he filed an application to expunge his record (R.C. 2953.22). On March 26, 1992 the court granted expungement and filed its journal entry on April 6, 1992. The state filed its appeal on April 2, 1992.

"The trial court erred in granting the expungement as appellee was convicted of a non-probationable offense and therefore, was ineligible for the sealing of records pursuant to R.C. 2953.36."

R.C. 2953.22 (sealing of the record of conviction) provides that a conviction may be expunged subject to limitations set forth in R.C. 2953.36.

R.C. 2953.36 (application of preceding sections) provides:

"Sections 2953.31 to 2953.35 of the Revised Code do not apply to convictions where the offender is not eligible for probation * * *."

R.C. 2951.02 (criteria for and against probation or suspension of sentence) provides in relevant part:

"(F) An offender shall not be placed on probation, and shall not otherwise have his sentence of imprisonment suspended pursuant to division (D)(2) or (4) of section 2929.51 of the Revised Code when any of the following applies:

" * * *

"(5) The offender is not eligible for probation or shock probation pursuant to division (C) of section 2903.06 or 2903.07 of the Revised Code or is sentenced to a term of actual incarceration." (Emphasis added.)

The record demonstrates that the defendant was sentenced to a mandatory six-month term of actual incarceration for violating R.C. 2925.03(A)(7), the sale of marijuana in a quantity equal to or exceeding three times the bulk amount.

R.C. 2925.03(E)(3) sets the penalty for plea or conviction of such an offense:

"If the drug involved is marijuana, whoever violates this section is guilty of trafficking in marijuana.

" * * *

"(3) Where the offender has violated division (A)(7) of this section, trafficking in marijuana is a felony of the second degree and the court shall impose a sentence of actual incarceration of six months." (Emphasis added.)

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the language of R.C. 2951.02(F)(5) is clear and unambiguous and that a defendant sentenced to a term of actual incarceration is unequivocally ineligible for probation. See State v. Smith (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 60, 63, 537 N.E.2d 198, 201. See, also, State v. Parsons (May 30, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 60936, unreported, 1991 WL 95103. Under R.C. 2951.02(F)(5), the defendant was not eligible for probation....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Briscoe
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1992
  • State v. S.J.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2020
    ...does not alter the thrust of R.C. 2953.36 which prohibits sealing of criminal records in such circumstances. State v. Leers , [84 Ohio App.3d 579, 581, 617 N.E.2d 754 (1992) ]. Under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(d), the court was obliged to consider the prosecutor's objections pointing out the use of......
  • State v. Simon
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 19, 2000
    ...of whether defendant received probation for a nonprobationable offense, is dispositive of this case. See State v. Leers (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 579, 581, 617 N.E.2d 754, 755 (that defendant actually received probation does not overcome R.C. 2953.36 prohibition against sealing the record for ......
  • State v. Lawrence Mitchell
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1997
    ... ... C. 2953.36 that one cannot seal a record for a ... nonprobationable offense.'" State v. Leers ... (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 579, 581, 617 N.E.2d 754; State v ... Moore (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 225, 227, 510 N.E.2d 825 ... In the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT