State v. D.L.L.

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 4956

Syllabus

Expungement; eligibility; R.C. 2953.32; statutory construction; de novo; plain language. Judgment vacated and remanded. The statutory language of the applicable version of R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) conveys a clear and definite list of exceptions and plainly and unambiguously enumerates the convictions that are ineligible for expungement. Accordingly, the trial court was required to apply the statute as written and any further interpretation of legislative intent was unwarranted. Based on the statute's plain language, the two fourth-degree-felony convictions that the defendant sought to expunge are clearly not excluded; the statute does not prohibit the sealing or expunging of fourth-degree-felony convictions in relation to third-degree-felony convictions when the fourth-degree felony convictions are nonviolent and otherwise eligible for expungement. Consequently, the trial court erred in finding that the defendant's two fourth-degree-felony convictions were not eligible for expungement. Since the trial court incorrectly determined the defendant was an ineligible offender based on its interpretation of excluded convictions alone and did not determine whether he was otherwise ineligible under other statutory requirements and considerations, we remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.