State v. Mastin, 2-92-2
| Decision Date | 20 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-92-2,2-92-2 |
| Citation | 615 N.E.2d 1084,83 Ohio App.3d 814 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MASTIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Spees, Auglaize County Pros. Atty., Wapakoneta, for appellee.
Paul E. Howell, Coldwater, for appellant.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Gary Mastin, from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Auglaize County denying his motion for sealing of a record of conviction under R.C. 2953.32.
On September 21, 1987, appellant, after admitting to having sex with a seventeen year-old girl on his track team, through plea negotiations pled guilty to one count of attempted sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2907.03, a felony of the fourth degree. On September 23, 1987, the trial court sentenced appellant to eighteen months in prison. Appellant was released from prison after serving twelve months of his sentence and was not placed on probation or parole at the time of his release.
On November 18, 1991, appellant filed an application for sealing of conviction, pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. Thereafter, on February 10, 1992, a hearing was held on appellant's application. The prosecutor did not file any objections to appellant's application and waived his appearance at the hearing. On March 9, 1992, the trial court denied appellant's application. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals and asserts three assignments of error.
Appellant argues that the trial court did not correctly apply the standards set forth in R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) and (2) in determining the merits of his application.
R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) sets forth the requirements the trial court shall follow to determine if an applicant is entitled to have his record of conviction sealed or expunged. If the trial court, after complying with R.C. 2953.32(C)(1), finds that the applicant is a first-time offender, that there are not any criminal proceedings pending against the applicant and that there is not a legitimate governmental need to maintain the records which outweighs the interest of the applicant in having his record expunged or sealed, the court shall order the applicant's record expunged or sealed. See R.C. 2953.32(C)(2). However, not every applicant is entitled to have his record expunged.
It is not disputed that appellant is a first-time offender, that there are not any pending criminal proceedings against him and that no objections were filed by the prosecutor. Therefore, the only issue before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it held that there was a legitimate governmental need to maintain the records which outweighed appellant's interest in having his record sealed or expunged.
In State v. Greene (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 137, 573 N.E.2d 110, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an application for sealing or expungement cannot be denied on the basis of the interest of society.
Herein, although the trial court mistakenly held that expungement would be against the best interests of society regarding the applicant's professional licensure, it also considered other factors in determining a legitimate governmental need in denying the application. The trial court in denying appellant's application weighed the record, which reflected the nature of the offense, the fact that offensive acts were committed more than once over a period of five to six weeks and that appellant knew that he was in a position of authority over much younger and more naive individuals. Therefore, since the trial court did not deny appellant's application solely because of the interest of justice, see Greene, supra, but rather in accordance with the criteria set forth in R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) and (2), appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hartup
...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 with the court, the court has no duty to advise a person to consider t......
- State v. Hustead
- State v. Kimberly R. Hartup, 98-LW-1639
-
State v. Hamilton
...that the appellate court's holding was in conflict with the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals in State v. Mastin (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 814, 615 N.E.2d 1084. The court of appeals below denied certification on that issue, holding that "[a]ny conflict is not on the rule of law a......