State: “Judge, we have no objection to the request for an expungement.” Judge: “But I do!”

Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.32 provides an avenue for relief for citizens saddled with the stigma of a past conviction. The statute sets forth the procedure and requirements for expunging or sealing a criminal record. It mandates that an individual may apply to have their record sealed or expunged as long as the convictions are not first-degree or second-degree felonies, felony offenses of violence, or sex offenses. The statute also lays out restrictions on sealing and expungement for third-degree felonies and domestic violence convictions.

As a general matter, misdemeanors are typically easier to address and can be expunged 6 months to 1 year after the final disposition of the case. On the other hand, an individual must wait 11 years to expunge a felony conviction.

The statute reflects a policy recognition that some people do change by learning from their mistakes and deserve the chance to move forward in life without the stigma of a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court of Ohio recently released State v J.B. involving an individual who filed applications to have 7 misdemeanor convictions spanning from 2012 to 2016 sealed. Her convictions mainly stemmed from shoplifting incidents where she stole merchandise from stores like Meijer and Target. She has a conviction from 2015 for resisting arrest when officers tried to place her in handcuffs and one from 2016 for obstruction of official business after giving law enforcement a false name.

Even though the State raised no objection to J.B.’s petition, the trial court denied the request. The court ruled that J.B.’s interest in pursuing employment without the stigma of her criminal convictions was not outweighed by the government’s interest in allowing the public to access these records. According to the trial court judge, J.B.’s convictions should remain open to the public, so that future employers could decide for themselves whether J.B. is worthy of their trust.

The trial court emphasized that J.B. failed to show evidence that she was rehabilitated following her convictions –– even though she worked as a license counselor, was pursuing her doctorate degree in social work, obtained a certificate of qualification for employment from the Ohio Supreme Court, and had not had any further criminal cases in the 4 years preceding her application.

Nonetheless, the trial court judge denied her application to seal the cases. The court focused on the number of convictions that J.B. had and emphasized that they involved dishonesty and offenses against justice and public administration. The judge decided that it was important for the public to know about J.B.’s minor shoplifting offenses, which are now 10 to 14 years old, despite significant evidence that J.B. learned from her mistakes and was working diligently to correct them and move forward with her life.

It is important to note that the State never objected to the defendant’s application, nor did they argue that the public interest in having access to the defendant’s record outweighed her interest in having it sealed. The trial court denied it, nonetheless. On appeal, the First District reversed and ordered the trial court to seal J.B.’s convictions.

Despite its decision not to appeal the original application, the State chose to appeal the reversal. In April 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision, agreeing with the trial court and the State. According to the Ohio Supreme Court, the appellate court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial court. The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s decision was not unreasonable, unconscionable or arbitrary, and therefore should stand.

This case has major implications for the thousands of individuals hoping to turn their lives around, seek employment, and become law-abiding members of society through expungements and seals. Even when the State does not oppose their request, the trial court still might. When a judge decides that a defendant has not been rehabilitated to their satisfaction, a person’s opportunity to move forward and turn over a new leaf may be shut down.

Scroll to Top