State v. Myrick

2025 Ohio 694

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 2024CA00095
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Myrick, 2025-Ohio-694.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. Hon. Kevin W. Popham, J. -vs-

SHAKOTA CHEYNNE MYRICK Case No. 2024CA00095

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Massillon Municipal Court, Case No. 2022-CRB-02415

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 27, 2025

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JUSTIN W. RICHARD JOSHUA L. HINKEL City of Massillon Law Director Community Legal Aid 2 James Duncan Plaza 401 Market Avenue, N., Suite 103 Massillon, Ohio 44646 Canton, Ohio 44702 Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Shakota Myrick appeals the May 30, 2024 Entry and

Order entered by the Massillon Municipal Court, which denied her application to expunge

or, in the alternative, seal a record pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. Plaintiff-appellee is the

State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On November 3, 2022, a complaint was filed in the Massillon Municipal

Court, charging Appellant with theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth

degree. Appellant was arrested on November 10, 2022, and released on her own

recognizance.

{¶3} Appellant appeared before the trial court on November 23, 2022, and

entered a plea of no contest to an amended count of theft, in violation of R.C.

2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The trial court sentenced Appellant to

100 days in jail, but suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on probation for five

(5) years. In addition, the trial court ordered Appellant to complete forty (40) hours of

community service and pay a $100.00 fine plus restitution in the amount of $614.00.

Appellant completed her community service hours and paid the full restitution amount.

{¶4} On May 16, 2024, Appellant filed an application to expunge or, in the

alternative, seal her record pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. Therein, Appellant stated the final

discharge occurred on March 16, 2023. Appellant noted, “[f]or the purposes of

expungement, it has been at least six months for any minor misdemeanor, one year for

1 A Statement of the Facts underlying Appellant’s conviction and sentence is not necessary to our

disposition of this appeal. any misdemeanor, eleven years for any felony of the 4th or 5th degree, or 13 years for any

felony of the 3rd degree since the final discharge occurred.” Application for Expungement

at p. 1. Appellant added, “for purposes of record sealing, it has been at least six months

since the final discharge of any minor misdemeanor, one year for any misdemeanor,

felony of the 4th or 5th degree, or three years for any felony of the 3 rd degree since the

final discharge occurred.” Id.

{¶5} Via Entry and Order issued May 30, 2024, the trial court denied Appellant’s

application without conducting a hearing. The trial court found Appellant “was sentenced

on November 23, 2022 and ordered to have no related offenses for 5 years and serve a

5 year probation period. The plea was agreed upon and negotiation.” May 30, 2024 Entry

and Order.

{¶6} It is from this judgment entry Appellant appeals, raising as her sole

assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT-

DEFENDANT SHAKOTA CHEYANNE MYRICK’S REQUEST FOR

EXPUNGEMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SEALING A CRIMINAL

RECORD BECAUSE THE COURT FAILED TO HOLD A HEARING AS

REQUIRED BY R.C. 2953.32(C). I

{¶7} In her sole assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred in

denying her application for expungement or, in the alternative, sealing her criminal record

without conducting a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(C). We agree.

{¶8} “Depending on the dispute in question, this Court will apply either a de novo

standard of review or an abuse of discretion standard of review in appeals from the denial

of an application to seal a record of conviction.” State v. Howard, 2022-Ohio-3992, ¶17

(5th Dist.), citing State v. Calderon, 2010-Ohio-2807, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.). We review a trial

court's decision to seal or expunge a record of conviction under an abuse-of-discretion

standard. State v. J.W.G., 2024-Ohio-2071, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing Bedford v. Bradberry,

2014-Ohio-2058, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). However, the question of whether an applicant is eligible

for sealing or expungement is a question of law we review de novo. State v. V.S., 2017-

Ohio-1565, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing Bradberry.

{¶9} R.C. 2953.32(C) provides, in pertinent part:

(C) Upon the filing of an application under this section, the court shall

set a date for a hearing and shall notify the prosecutor for the case of the

hearing on the application not less than sixty days prior to the hearing.

Pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, the prosecutor shall provide timely notice

of the application and the date and time of the hearing to a victim and

victim’s representative, if applicable, if the victim or victim's representative

requested notice of the proceedings in the underlying case. The court shall hold the hearing not less than forty-five days and not more than ninety days

from the date of the filing of the application.

{¶10} R.C. 2953.32(C) expressly requires the trial court to set a hearing on a

defendant’s application for the sealing or expungement of a record, conduct a hearing on

the application, and make the determinations enumerated in R.C. 2953.32(D)(1). Only

after the trial court acts in accordance with the statute by setting and conducting a hearing

on an application, and making the requisite statutory determinations and considerations,

may the court render a decision on the application.

{¶11} The language of R.C. 2953.32 is clear and unambiguous; therefore, the trial

court was required to follow the language of the statute. Accordingly, pursuant to the

dictates of R.C. 2953.32, we find the trial court improperly denied Appellant's application

“without first setting a hearing and conducting a hearing in concert with the statutory

requirements.” State v. W.A.R., 2024-Ohio-256, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.).

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is

sustained. {¶13} The judgment of the Massillon Municipal Court is reversed and the matter

remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on Appellant’s application in accordance

with R.C. 2953.32.

By: Hoffman, P.J. Montgomery, J. Popham J. concur