Background
In May 2016, T.N.S. was convicted of criminal damaging, a misdemeanor, and received a suspended $250 fine, suspended 30-day jail sentence, and six months of probation. A separate theft charge was dismissed. T.N.S. completed her probation obligations by February 2018.
In July 2025, T.N.S. applied for expungement of her conviction under Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.32. At the September 2025 hearing, neither the prosecutor nor the victim objected to the application. The trial court found T.N.S. had been rehabilitated but, citing concerns about statutory ambiguity and applying what it characterized as a cautious policy, granted sealing rather than expungement—limiting public access while preserving law enforcement access to the records.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and vacated, holding that the trial court erred by substituting sealing for expungement based on an internal policy preference. The court emphasized that expungement and sealing are distinct remedies: expungement results in permanent deletion of records, while sealing merely shields them from public view but leaves them accessible to certain entities like law enforcement.
The appellate court found that T.N.S. satisfied all statutory requirements for expungement: her application was timely, no criminal proceedings were pending, she had been rehabilitated, neither the prosecutor nor victim objected, and her interests in relief outweighed any government interest in maintaining the records. Because the trial court’s own findings supported expungement, the court was statutorily required to grant it.
The court rejected the trial court’s reliance on purported statutory ambiguity, holding that courts cannot deviate from statutory requirements based on policy preferences or concerns about hypothetical future clarifications. It is the legislature’s role, not the courts’, to address the statutory scheme governing record expungement and sealing.
Key Takeaways
- When an applicant meets all statutory requirements for expungement, courts must grant expungement—they cannot substitute sealing based on judicial policy preferences.
- Expungement (permanent deletion) and sealing (public restriction with agency access) are distinct remedies, and the applicant’s choice of remedy controls if statutory eligibility is satisfied.
- Courts lack discretion to refuse expungement based on concerns about statutory ambiguity; statutory interpretation issues are for the legislature to resolve.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes clear boundaries on judicial discretion in expungement proceedings. Trial courts cannot impose blanket policies preferring sealing over expungement, even if motivated by caution. This protects applicants’ statutory rights and ensures consistent application of expungement law across Ohio courts. The ruling reinforces that once an applicant satisfies the statutory factors—rehabilitation, absence of objections, and favorable weighing of interests—the court’s role is ministerial, not discretionary.
For practitioners, the decision clarifies that where clients are eligible for and request expungement, courts must grant it if the statutory requirements are met. Trial courts cannot use interpretive concerns as a basis to provide a lesser remedy when the statute plainly permits what the applicant seeks.