[Cite as State v. Tysinger, 2026-Ohio-199.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO Case No. CT2025-0067
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024-0695 JARED G. TYSINGER Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: January 22, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: JOSEPH A. PALMER, for Plaintiff-Appellee; SCOTT P. WOOD, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jared G. Tysinger, appeals the June 24, 2025
judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his application
to seal records. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On October 30, 2024, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Tysinger
on two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05. A jury trial
commenced on April 8, 2025. The jury found Tysinger not guilty of both charges.
{¶ 3} On April 24, 2025, Tysinger filed an application to seal/expunge records of
the charges under R.C. 2953.33; the prosecutor filed an objection. A hearing was held
on June 23, 2025. The trial court denied the application, finding the state's interest in keeping the records open outweighed Tysinger's interest in sealing them. The trial court
journalized its denial in a judgment entry filed June 24, 2025.
{¶ 4} Tysinger filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO SEAL RECORDS AFTER A NOT GUILTY VERDICT
BY A JURY."
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Tysinger claims the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his application to seal his records after a not guilty finding. We
disagree.
{¶ 7} Our standard of review in this case is whether the trial court abused its
discretion. State v. Calderon, 2010-Ohio-2807, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Singer,
2009-Ohio-909, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.) ("If the matter in dispute concerns the court's discretion,
such as its conclusion that the evidence does not weigh in favor of expungement, then
an abuse of discretion standard applies"); accord State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2018, ¶ 10
(5th Dist.). "Abuse of discretion" means an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 (1985). Most
instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable,
rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v.
River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). An
unreasonable decision is one backed by no sound reasoning process which would
support that decision. Id. "It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps
in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result." Id.
We note the sealing/expungement of criminal records "is a privilege, not a right." State
v. Moore, 2012-Ohio-4483, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.).
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2953.33(A)(1), "[a]ny person, who is found not guilty of an
offense by a jury or a court . . . may apply to the court for an order to seal or . . . expunge
the person's official records in the case." Tysinger filed his application without any
reasons other than he was found not guilty of the charges, he did not have any criminal
charges currently pending against him, and his interest in sealing the records was not
outweighed by any legitimate governmental interest in keeping the records open. The
prosecutor filed an objection, arguing the following:
The State's interests in maintaining the record in this case greatly
outweighs any interest applicant may assert. Should defendant face
charges in the future, the records would provide the Court and law
enforcement agencies with valuable information. It is well established that
when an applicant is sentenced, courts can consider offenses that have not
resulted in a conviction or charge because courts should have "the fullest
information possible concerning the applicant's life and characteristics."
These records are essential in the functioning of the judicial system
because the records provide a thorough history of applicant's contact with
the criminal justice system, thereby allowing the court to understand the
applicant's history. (Citations omitted.) Finally, the public has a legitimate interest in examining criminal
records. As more and more businesses are concerned about the safety and
security of their employees, criminal records checks allow employers to
determine whether a prospective employee has had contact with the
criminal justice system. . . . By maintaining legitimate public access to the
record, future employers would at least be able to question applicant about
the case and the facts underlying the charges.
{¶ 9} Under R.C. 2953.33(B)(2)(c), the trial court shall "consider the reasons
against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the objection." The trial
court shall also "[w]eigh the interests of the person in having the official records pertaining
to the case sealed or expunged, as applicable, against the legitimate needs, if any, of the
government to maintain those records." R.C. 2953.33(B)(2)(e). Under subsection (B)(4):
If the court determines, after complying with division (B)(2) of this
section, that the person was found not guilty in the case . . . ; that no criminal
proceedings are pending against the person; and the interests of the person
in having the records pertaining to the case sealed or expunged, as
applicable, are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to
maintain such records, . . . the court shall issue an order directing that all
official records pertaining to the case be sealed or expunged, as applicable,
and that, except as provided in section 2953.34 of the Revised Code, the
proceedings in the case be deemed not to have occurred. {¶ 10} During the hearing, Tysinger argued four reasons for having his records
sealed:
{¶ 11} 1) Although he is employed, he is concerned if that employment should
terminate, the charges could prejudice his application in the future.
{¶ 12} 2) He is worried he could have similar consequences for potential attempts
to gain housing in the future.
{¶ 13} 3) He is interested in having an active role in his children's lives and the
charges could prejudice him in future custody matters.
{¶ 14} 4) He would like to take an active role in his children's extracurriculars, like
being a coach, and the charges could affect his chances to do so. June 23, 2025 T. at 4.
{¶ 15} The prosecutor reiterated the arguments contained in the filed written
objection (Id. at 5):
In the motion that the State put - - or the memorandum in opposition,
the government interest here would be, you know, if there ever came a
future day where there was future criminal, civil issues, this information
provides insight as to the underlying records which law enforcement relies
on, the type of conduct that that Court or that tribunal could find interesting
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Tysinger, 2026-Ohio-199.]
COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO Case No. CT2025-0067
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024-0695 JARED G. TYSINGER Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: January 22, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; David M. Gormley, Appellate Judges
APPEARANCES: JOSEPH A. PALMER, for Plaintiff-Appellee; SCOTT P. WOOD, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Jared G. Tysinger, appeals the June 24, 2025
judgment entry of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas denying his application
to seal records. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On October 30, 2024, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Tysinger
on two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05. A jury trial
commenced on April 8, 2025. The jury found Tysinger not guilty of both charges.
{¶ 3} On April 24, 2025, Tysinger filed an application to seal/expunge records of
the charges under R.C. 2953.33; the prosecutor filed an objection. A hearing was held
on June 23, 2025. The trial court denied the application, finding the state's interest in keeping the records open outweighed Tysinger's interest in sealing them. The trial court
journalized its denial in a judgment entry filed June 24, 2025.
{¶ 4} Tysinger filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO SEAL RECORDS AFTER A NOT GUILTY VERDICT
BY A JURY."
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Tysinger claims the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his application to seal his records after a not guilty finding. We
disagree.
{¶ 7} Our standard of review in this case is whether the trial court abused its
discretion. State v. Calderon, 2010-Ohio-2807, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Singer,
2009-Ohio-909, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.) ("If the matter in dispute concerns the court's discretion,
such as its conclusion that the evidence does not weigh in favor of expungement, then
an abuse of discretion standard applies"); accord State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-2018, ¶ 10
(5th Dist.). "Abuse of discretion" means an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 (1985). Most
instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable,
rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v.
River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). An
unreasonable decision is one backed by no sound reasoning process which would
support that decision. Id. "It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps
in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result." Id.
We note the sealing/expungement of criminal records "is a privilege, not a right." State
v. Moore, 2012-Ohio-4483, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.).
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2953.33(A)(1), "[a]ny person, who is found not guilty of an
offense by a jury or a court . . . may apply to the court for an order to seal or . . . expunge
the person's official records in the case." Tysinger filed his application without any
reasons other than he was found not guilty of the charges, he did not have any criminal
charges currently pending against him, and his interest in sealing the records was not
outweighed by any legitimate governmental interest in keeping the records open. The
prosecutor filed an objection, arguing the following:
The State's interests in maintaining the record in this case greatly
outweighs any interest applicant may assert. Should defendant face
charges in the future, the records would provide the Court and law
enforcement agencies with valuable information. It is well established that
when an applicant is sentenced, courts can consider offenses that have not
resulted in a conviction or charge because courts should have "the fullest
information possible concerning the applicant's life and characteristics."
These records are essential in the functioning of the judicial system
because the records provide a thorough history of applicant's contact with
the criminal justice system, thereby allowing the court to understand the
applicant's history. (Citations omitted.) Finally, the public has a legitimate interest in examining criminal
records. As more and more businesses are concerned about the safety and
security of their employees, criminal records checks allow employers to
determine whether a prospective employee has had contact with the
criminal justice system. . . . By maintaining legitimate public access to the
record, future employers would at least be able to question applicant about
the case and the facts underlying the charges.
{¶ 9} Under R.C. 2953.33(B)(2)(c), the trial court shall "consider the reasons
against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the objection." The trial
court shall also "[w]eigh the interests of the person in having the official records pertaining
to the case sealed or expunged, as applicable, against the legitimate needs, if any, of the
government to maintain those records." R.C. 2953.33(B)(2)(e). Under subsection (B)(4):
If the court determines, after complying with division (B)(2) of this
section, that the person was found not guilty in the case . . . ; that no criminal
proceedings are pending against the person; and the interests of the person
in having the records pertaining to the case sealed or expunged, as
applicable, are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to
maintain such records, . . . the court shall issue an order directing that all
official records pertaining to the case be sealed or expunged, as applicable,
and that, except as provided in section 2953.34 of the Revised Code, the
proceedings in the case be deemed not to have occurred. {¶ 10} During the hearing, Tysinger argued four reasons for having his records
sealed:
{¶ 11} 1) Although he is employed, he is concerned if that employment should
terminate, the charges could prejudice his application in the future.
{¶ 12} 2) He is worried he could have similar consequences for potential attempts
to gain housing in the future.
{¶ 13} 3) He is interested in having an active role in his children's lives and the
charges could prejudice him in future custody matters.
{¶ 14} 4) He would like to take an active role in his children's extracurriculars, like
being a coach, and the charges could affect his chances to do so. June 23, 2025 T. at 4.
{¶ 15} The prosecutor reiterated the arguments contained in the filed written
objection (Id. at 5):
In the motion that the State put - - or the memorandum in opposition,
the government interest here would be, you know, if there ever came a
future day where there was future criminal, civil issues, this information
provides insight as to the underlying records which law enforcement relies
on, the type of conduct that that Court or that tribunal could find interesting
or useful in crafting an appropriate order in the future or conducting a future
investigation. So that's the government interest. {¶ 16} We note the prosecutor's argument is a nullity given the statutory language
of R.C. 2953.34. This section lists thirteen different instances for the inspection of sealed
records by certain individuals in certain circumstances, including law enforcement,
prosecutors, and the bureau of criminal identification for criminal records checks. The
governmental interest as argued by the prosecutor is alleviated by this statute.
{¶ 17} The trial court inquired about Tysinger's employment and his criminal
record. June 23, 2025 T. at 6-7. Tysinger was employed for the past six months, maybe
longer. Id. at 6. He had a criminal record for falsification, obstructing, domestic violence,
and multiple driving violations. Id. at 6-7. The trial court denied the application, stating:
"As I said, I am going to deny your motion based upon the fact I think the State's interest
outweighs your interest at this point because you're gainfully employed and you have
other - - other criminal record, other criminal offenses on your record. That will be all."
Id. at 7-8.
{¶ 18} The abuse of discretion standard is a high hurdle to clear. While we
acknowledge the trial court's reasoning is brief, we do not find the trial court abused its
discretion in denying the application. Tysinger is gainfully employed and has not shown
any problems with housing and participating in his children's lives; his preexisting criminal
record could very well affect his four areas of concern. If in the future Tysinger is able to
demonstrate an adequate change in circumstances due to the charges he was found not
guilty of, he could file a second application. Although we may have ruled differently on
Tysinger's application, we cannot find the trial court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary
or unconscionable.
{¶ 19} We note the trial court's decision is silent as to R.C. 2953.33(B)(3): (3) If the court determines after complying with division (B)(2)(a) of
this section that the person was found not guilty in the case, . . . the court
shall issue an order to the superintendent of the bureau of criminal
identification and investigation directing that the superintendent expunge
or seal or cause to be sealed, as applicable, the official records in the case
consisting of DNA specimens that are in the possession of the bureau and
all DNA records and DNA profiles. The determinations and considerations
described in divisions (B)(2)(b), (c), and (e) of this section do not apply with
respect to a determination of the court described in this division.
{¶ 20} However, we further note, "[a]ny DNA specimens, DNA records, and DNA
profiles ordered to be sealed or expunged under this section shall not be sealed or
expunged if the person with respect to whom the order applies is otherwise eligible to
have DNA records or a DNA profile in the national DNA index system." R.C.
2953.33(B)(5).
{¶ 21} The trial court is directed to comply with R.C. 2953.33(B)(3) if it has not
done so.
{¶ 22} Upon review, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in
denying Tysinger's application to seal his records.
{¶ 23} The sole assignment of error is denied. {¶ 24} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
{¶ 25} Costs to Appellant.
By: King, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Gormley, J. concur.