Background
R.L. pleaded guilty in 2019 to first-degree-misdemeanor aggravated trespass and assault. The court imposed a suspended 38-day jail term, one year of inactive community control, and a no-contact order. Later that year, the court found that R.L. violated community control by texting the victim.
R.L. filed three applications to expunge the convictions. Her first was deemed withdrawn after she failed to appear at a hearing, and her second was denied. The trial court initially summarily denied the third application, but the Eighth District remanded for findings on the statutory expungement factors. On remand, the court again denied relief, finding that R.L. had not shown rehabilitation and that her unarticulated sealing interests did not outweigh the government’s interest in retaining the records.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed. It held that the trial court was not required to hold another hearing after remand because its prior mandate required the court to consider the statutory factors and create a complete record; it did not direct a new hearing. R.L. had failed to appear, without explanation, at the two earlier hearings on her applications.
The court also held that the denial was within the trial court’s discretion under R.C. 2953.32. Although R.L. was eligible and had no pending criminal proceedings, the trial court could consider her later criminal matters, including convictions and a sealed prior conviction, as well as the victim’s reports of continuing harassment. R.L. offered only conclusory assertions in her application and no hearing testimony to establish rehabilitation or explain her interest in sealing the record.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate remand for statutory findings does not require a new expungement hearing unless the mandate says so.
- An expungement applicant bears the burden to show rehabilitation and that her interest in sealing outweighs legitimate governmental interests.
- A trial court may consider later convictions, a sealed prior conviction, and victim objections when evaluating rehabilitation and the statutory balancing test.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that eligibility for expungement does not entitle an applicant to relief. Trial courts retain discretion to deny sealing when the record supports a finding that rehabilitation has not been shown or when the applicant does not substantiate the need for sealing.