State v. Petrou
| Decision Date | 01 February 1984 |
| Citation | 469 N.E.2d 974,13 Ohio App.3d 456,13 OBR 546 |
| Parties | , 13 O.B.R. 546 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. PETROU, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In R.C. 2935.01(D), and for purposes of R.C. 2953.32(C), the legislature used the term "offense" to include felonies and misdemeanors, including minor misdemeanors. Therefore, a person with a conviction for permitting drug abuse, and a subsequent conviction for disorderly conduct by intoxication, a minor misdemeanor, would not qualify as a "first offender" within the meaning of R.C. 2953.32.
Lynn C. Slaby, Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Christopher T. Cherpas, Akron, for appellant.
The defendant-appellant, James S. Petrou, was convicted of permitting drug abuse, R.C. 2925.13(A), a first degree misdemeanor. Thereafter, he was convicted of disorderly conduct by intoxication under a municipal ordinance similar to R.C. 2917.11(B), a minor misdemeanor. Petrou applied to the trial court for an expungement of the drug abuse conviction. Expungement was denied on the basis that Petrou did not have the requisite status of a "first offender." Petrou appeals claiming that the legislature did not intend to include minor misdemeanor convictions, such as status offenses and traffic violations, within the meaning of the word "offense."
R.C. 2953.31 defines a first offender as "anyone who has once been convicted of an offense in this state or any other jurisdiction." The term "offense" is defined in R.C. 2935.01(D) as to include "felonies, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances of municipal corporations and other public bodies authorized by law to adopt penal regulations." The legislature used the word "offense" to include both felonies and misdemeanors and it did not exempt certain minor misdemeanors. Undoubtedly the generic meaning of the word "offense" controls. 25 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1981) 94, Criminal Law, Section 2 provides:
" * * * Both felonies and misdemeanors are covered by the term 'offense,' [citing In re Brady (1927), 116 Ohio St. 512, 157 N.E. 69] and the term has been defined to be 'the doing of that which a penal law forbids to be done, or omitting to do what it commands.' .] * * * "
In State v. Thomas (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 141, 411 N.E.2d 845 , the court interpreted "first offender" to include prior misdemeanor convictions, including traffic offenses. In Chillicothe v. Herron (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 468, 445 N.E.2d 1171, the court held that to be eligible for an expungement the applicant must be a person without a speeding violation. These cases are consistent with the universal understanding of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. S.J.
...of expungement, or sealing a record of conviction, is to recognize that people may be rehabilitated. State v. Petrou , 13 Ohio App.3d 456, 456, 469 N.E.2d 974 (9th Dist.1984). In enacting the expungement provisions, the legislature recognized that " ‘[p]eople make mistakes, but that afterwa......
-
State v. K.S.
...purpose of expungement, or sealing a record of conviction, is to recognize that people may be rehabilitated. State v. Petrou, 13 Ohio App.3d 456, 456, 469 N.E.2d 974 (9th Dist.1984). In enacting the expungement provisions, the legislature recognized that "'[p]eople make mistakes, but that a......
-
State v.
...purpose of expungement, or sealing a record of conviction, is to recognize that people may be rehabilitated. State v. Petrou, 13 Ohio App.3d 456, 456, 469 N.E.2d 974 (9th Dist.1984). In enacting the expungement provisions, the legislature recognized that "'[p]eople make mistakes, but that a......
-
State v. Krantz
...These statutes were enacted to recognize that individuals with a single criminal infraction may be rehabilitated. State v. Petrou (1984), 13 Ohio App.3d 456, 469 N.E.2d 974; State v. Derugen (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 408, 674 N.E.2d 719. Offenses that are linked together logically or coherent......