Background
L.W. appealed from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas’ denial of his application to expunge a 2004 conviction for telecommunications harassment under R.C. 2917.21, a first-degree misdemeanor. The underlying case involved allegations that L.W. threatened and harassed his ex-girlfriend. Following a bench trial, the court convicted him and imposed a suspended six-month jail sentence with three years of community-control sanctions, which were terminated four months later when L.W. began serving a 36-month federal prison sentence on drug charges.
L.W.’s criminal history included a 2009 disorderly conduct conviction, 2012 convictions for trafficking, drug possession, possession of criminal tools, contempt of court, and carrying a concealed weapon, and a 2014 trafficking conviction. He served prison time in 2014 for probation violations and the new trafficking offense. On April 10, 2025, L.W. filed an application for expungement pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. The trial court ordered an expungement investigation report, which noted two additional cases under review. The State filed a brief conceding eligibility but “conditionally opposing” the application based on the victim’s objection.
At the February 11, 2026 hearing, L.W.’s counsel argued that the 20-year-old case should be expunged given L.W.’s rehabilitation, marriage, children, and business ownership. The assistant prosecuting attorney referenced L.W.’s criminal history and noted he appeared to be “smiling, smirking” during proceedings. The victim testified via Zoom that she continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety requiring therapy, stating she could not “move on” from the trauma. L.W. testified that he was young when the crimes occurred, had not been in trouble for over 20 years, owned a convenience store, and wanted to move forward. The trial court summarily denied the application without placing findings on the record.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Writing for the panel, Judge Clary applied the abuse-of-discretion standard, which requires a finding that the trial court’s attitude was “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” The court explained that trial courts use a two-step analysis for expungement applications: determining eligibility and weighing substantive considerations for and against relief. Although the parties agreed L.W. was eligible, the court found the trial court properly weighed the statutory factors under R.C. 2953.32(D)(1), including the victim’s objection, L.W.’s criminal history, and his rehabilitation evidence.
The court rejected L.W.’s argument that the State’s failure to articulate a specific governmental interest required granting the application. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. J.B., the panel emphasized that the expungement statute places no burden on the State to submit evidence, and the lack of prosecutorial objection does not relieve the trial court of its duty to weigh governmental interests against the applicant’s interests. The court also noted that the trial court could consider all convictions in the EIR, including those previously expunged or sealed, pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(D)(2)(b).
Significantly, the court acknowledged that the trial court’s summary denial without findings would normally warrant reversal and remand under State v. B.H. However, because L.W. failed to cite this procedural infirmity as an assignment of error, the court declined to address it under the party-presentation principle, which limits appellate review to issues framed by the parties. The panel concluded that based on the record, including the victim’s testimony regarding ongoing trauma and L.W.’s extensive criminal history, the trial court’s determination that L.W. failed to meet his burden was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Key Takeaways
- Expungement applications are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the applicant bears the burden of proving rehabilitation and that privacy interests outweigh governmental interests in maintaining records.
- Trial courts may consider an applicant’s entire criminal history, including previously sealed or expunged convictions, when evaluating rehabilitation under R.C. 2953.32(D)(2)(b).
- The State has no burden to submit evidence opposing expungement, and the trial court must independently weigh governmental interests even when the prosecution offers no objection.
- Failure to assign as error a trial court’s failure to make required findings precludes appellate review of that procedural defect under the party-presentation principle.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the discretionary nature of expungement relief in Ohio and clarifies that eligibility alone does not guarantee relief. Practitioners must ensure that all potential procedural defects, including a trial court’s failure to state findings on the record, are specifically raised as assignments of error to preserve them for appellate review.
The ruling also highlights the significant weight afforded victim impact statements in expungement proceedings, particularly where the victim demonstrates ongoing psychological trauma. Even where an applicant presents evidence of rehabilitation and the State offers only conditional opposition, trial courts retain broad discretion to deny expungement based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the original offense and the applicant’s complete criminal history.