State v. R.J.

[Cite as State v. R.J., 2026-Ohio-3789.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. Nos. 25CA012402 25CA012403 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT R.J. ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Appellant COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 96CR049302 98CR052202 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 28, 2026 HENSAL, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, R.J., appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses and remands. I. {¶2} In 1999, R.J. pleaded guilty to seven counts of passing bad checks in violation of former Revised Code Section 2913.11(A), felonies of the fourth degree, in Case No. 96CR049302. That same year, in Case No. 98CR52202, R.J. pleaded guilty to three additional counts of passing bad checks in violation of former Revised Code Section 2913.11(A), as well as three counts of uttering a forged instrument in violation of former Revised Code Section 2913.31(A)(3), all felonies of the fourth degree. R.J. was sentenced according to law in both cases.  2 {¶3} In 2022, R.J. filed an application to seal the record of his convictions. The trial court issued a journal entry denying the motion on the basis that R.J. was not eligible to have his convictions sealed. {¶4} In 2025, R.J. filed an application to have his convictions expunged in both Case No. 96CR049302 and Case No. 98CR52202. The trial court initially set the matter for a hearing. Shortly thereafter, however, the trial court issued a journal entry denying the application on the basis that it was precluded from expunging R.J.’s convictions under Revised Code Section 2953.32(A)(1)(h). In light of that determination, the trial court found that a hearing was unnecessary. {¶5} On appeal, R.J. raises one assignment of error. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING R.J.’S EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION WITHOUT A HEARING WHEN THE CONVICTIONS THAT R.J. APPLIED TO EXPUNGE WERE ELIGIBLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT UNDER R.C. 2953.32(A). {¶6} In his sole assignment of error, R.J. argues that the trial court erred in denying his application for expungement without a hearing. {¶7} In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on an application to either expunge a conviction or seal the record of conviction, this Court will apply a de novo standard of review when confronted with a question of law. See State v. Q.M.E., 2022-Ohio-1745, ¶ 4 (9th Dist.). “When applying the de novo standard of review, this Court gives no deference to the trial court’s legal determinations.” State v. West, 2005-Ohio-990, ¶ 33 (9th Dist.). {¶8} The record reveals that R.J.’s application to expunge his convictions pertained to all of his convictions in both Case No. 96CR049302 and Case No. 98CR52202. As noted above,  3 all of R.J.’s convictions pertinent to his application were fourth-degree felonies. After initially setting the matter for a hearing, the trial court subsequently issued a journal entry denying the application on the basis that, “[p]er R.C. 2953.32(A)(1)(h), [R.J.] is not eligible for sealing or expungement.” {¶9} Under these circumstances, we are compelled to sustain R.J.’s assignment of error. Revised Code Section 2953.32 has been amended multiple times in recent years. At the time R.J. filed his application, Revised Code Section 2953.32(A)(1)(h) provided that “Sections 2952.32 to 2953.34 of the Revised Code do not apply to . . . [c]onvictions of a felony of the third degree if the offender has more than one other conviction of any felony or, if the person has exactly two convictions of a felony of the third degree, has more convictions in total than those two third degree felony convictions and two misdemeanor convictions.” Given that the convictions pertinent to R.J.’s application were fourth-degree felonies, the trial court was not prohibited form considering the merits of his application under Revised Code Section 2953.32(A)(1)(h). The State has conceded error in this regard. While the State notes that R.J. would have been precluded from applying for expungement under previous versions of Revised Code Section 2953.32, the State has acknowledged that “under the current version of R.C. 2953.32, [R.J.] may file an application for the trial court to consider expungement of [his] 13 convictions.” It follows that this matter must be remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of R.J.’s application. {¶10} R.J.’s assignment of error is sustained. III. {¶11} R.J.’s assignment of error is sustained to the extent discussed above. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.  4 Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellee. JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT SUTTON, J. STEVENSON, J. CONCUR. APPEARANCES: NICHOLAS D. KERR and PATRICK C. HANEY, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant. ANTHONY CILLO, Prsecuting Attorney, and T. ALLAN REGAS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.