State v. Rick L. Young, 92-LW-0016

• Decision Date: 14 January 1992
• Docket Number: 12847,92-LW-0016
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICK L. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant CASE
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICK L. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant

No. 12847.

92-LW-0016 (2nd)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District Montgomery

January 14, 1992

TED E MILLSPAUGH, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Appellate Division, 41 N. Perry Street, Suite 315, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

RICH YOUNG, #206-941, Chillicothe Correctional Inst., P.O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, Defendant-Appellant, pro se.

OPINION

WILSON J.

The defendant-appellant, Rick L. Young, was convicted in 1988 Of conspiring to commit aggravated arson. We affirmed his conviction and the Ohio Supreme court overruled his motion for leave to appeal.

On September 4, 1990, the appellant filed the following motion:

Appellant, Rick L. Young, was dismissed pertaining to R.C 2903.01 " (Aggravated murder) "on March 16, 1988, prior to indictment and, therefore, herein moves the Court for an order sealing the records pertaining to said action in accordance with R.C. 2953.52 ***".

Attached to the motion was a memorandum which stated in part as follows:

The Defendant is only seeking under R.C. 2953.52(A) and or (B) the dismissal of the Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Murder."

On October 23, 1990, the trial court overruled the defendant's motion for an order sealing the records finding "that the applicant herein is not eligible for expungement." No appeal was taken from this order.

On April 8, 1991, the appellant once again filed a motion pursuant to 2953.52 to seal records after dismissal of proceedings. In the second paragraph of his motion, the appellant made the following observations concerning the overruling of his prior motion to expunge.

The order to overrule defendant's motion to expunge record of conviction is misplaced. Applicant is requiring to seek under R.C. 2953.52, and not R.C. 2953.ø32. In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2953.52(B) upon said filing of an application, the court shall set a date for a hearing on said application.

On April 11, 1991, the trial court overruled the second motion finding that "the Defendant is not entitled to successive motions on the same subject."

Mr. Young has appealed from the order overruling the second motion to seal records.

R.C 2953.52(A) is limited in its application to a person who has been found not guilty of an offense, or a person named in a formal charge, or a person against whom the grand jury has returned a "no bill." The...