[Cite as State v. Glynn , 2016-Ohio-3230.]



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL GLYNN, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-150474 TRIAL NO. C-04CRB-3163

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 1, 2016

Joseph T. Deters , Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan

, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Raymond T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender, and Marguerite Slagle

, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



### 2 F ISCHER , Presiding Judge.



### {¶1} Defendant-appellant Michael Glynn appeals the decision of the Hamilton County Municipal Court denyin g his application to seal a criminal

conviction. Because we determine that th e trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Glynn’s application by relying on the state’s objection that a sealed conviction could not be located by other la w-enforcement officials, we must reverse

the decision of the trial court. 

### {¶2} In 2004, Glynn pleaded no contest to violating a domestic-relationsprotective order, a first-degree misdemeanor, after kicking the front door of his exwife’s home, breaking the lock, and twisting his ex-wife’s arm while she held their six-month-old baby. In 2015, Glynn moved to seal the record of his conviction, and the trial court held a hearing on his motion. At the hearing, the prosecutor objected to Glynn’s application, in part, on the grounds that another police department or prosecutor would not know to search for the sealed conviction, and that the past

conviction then could not serv e to enhance a future charge. 

### {¶3} After a hearing, the trial court de nied Glynn’s request to seal his conviction based, in part, on the prosecut or’s objection, and this appeal ensued. 

### {¶4} In three assignments of error, Glynn challenges the trial court’s denial of his application to seal his criminal conviction. In general, we review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to expunge and seal a record for an abuse of discretion. State v. Spohr , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110314, 2012-Ohio-556, ¶ 5. But, if the issue involves a purely legal question, our standard of review is de novo. Id. 

### {¶5} An eligible offender may file an application to seal records of a criminal conviction under R.C. 2953.32. The statute allows the prosecutor to fileOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



### 3 objections to the application. See R.C. 2953.32(B). In de termining whether to grant or deny the application, the trial court must then: (a) Determine whether the applicant is an eligible offender * * *; (b) Determine whether criminal pr oceedings are pending against the applicant; (c) [D]etermine whethe r the applicant has been rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the court; (d) If the prosecutor has filed an objection * * *, consider the reasons against granting the application sp ecified by the prosecutor in the objection; (e) Weigh the interests of the a pplicant in having the records pertaining to the applicant’s convic tion * * * against the legitimate needs, if any, of the governme nt to maintain those records.

See R.C. 2953.32(C)(1). 

### {¶6} R.C. 2953.32 specifically allows a law-enforcement officer or prosecutor to inspect a sealed record to determine whether that sealed record could enhance a charge. See R.C. 2953.32(D)(1). Where a “prime reason for denying expungement [is] rooted in a misconception of the law, a court of appeals may

reverse the trial court’s deci sion denying expungment.” State v. Greene , 61 Ohio St.3d 137, 140, 573 N.E.2d 110 (1991). Because the prosecutor’s objection and the trial court’s decision relied on a misconception of law, we must sustain Glynn’s assignments of error. The trial court’s decision is reversed and this cause is

remanded with instructions to the trial court to reconsider Glynn’s application pursuant to the law an d this opinion.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



### 4 Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

H ENDON and S TAUTBERG , JJ., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.