Background
P.G. moved under Ohio Revised Code § 2953.32 to expunge her 2010 misdemeanor convictions for possession of drugs and possession of drug instruments. The State did not oppose the motion and told the Licking County Municipal Court at the hearing that it had no objection.
The municipal court found that P.G.’s interest in sealing the records outweighed the government’s interest in maintaining them and initially announced that it would grant sealing. When counsel clarified that P.G. sought expungement, however, the court denied expungement while granting sealing, reasoning that the government’s interest in retaining a sealed record outweighed P.G.’s interest in expunging it. P.G. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District sustained P.G.’s first assignment of error based on the State’s appellate concession that the municipal court erred by denying expungement. The appellate court therefore did not separately analyze the statutory distinction between sealing and expungement or the municipal court’s competing-interest findings.
The court vacated the municipal court’s judgment and remanded with a specific instruction to issue an order expunging P.G.’s record. Because that disposition supplied the requested relief, the court held that P.G.’s alternative argument concerning the absence of reviewable findings was moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth District accepted the State’s concession that denial of P.G.’s expungement motion was erroneous.
- The court vacated the judgment rather than merely directing the municipal court to reconsider the competing interests.
- On remand, the municipal court must issue an order expunging P.G.’s record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that sealing and expungement are distinct forms of relief and that granting sealing does not necessarily resolve a properly presented request for expungement. Here, the appellate court required the trial court to provide the expungement P.G. requested.
The opinion is procedurally narrow because its ruling rested on the State’s concession of error. It therefore offers limited analysis for future disputes over statutory eligibility or the balancing of governmental and applicant interests.