The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that T.N.S. is entitled to have her criminal record expunged following a previous conviction for criminal damaging. The court's decision, released on June 18, 2026, overturns a lower court's refusal to grant the expungement. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for expungement in Ohio and highlights the importance of following statutory requirements.
T.N.S., the defendant in this case, had previously been convicted of criminal damaging in 2016. After serving her sentence and completing probation, she sought to have her record expunged. The lower court had initially opted to seal the record instead, citing its own policy, which the appeals court found to be improper.
Background
The case began when T.N.S. was convicted of criminal damaging, a misdemeanor, on May 10, 2016. The court imposed a $250 fine, ordered her to pay court costs, and sentenced her to 30 days in jail, which was suspended. T.N.S. was also placed on six months of active probation, which was terminated in February 2018 after she fulfilled her obligations.
On July 18, 2025, T.N.S. filed an application for expungement of her criminal record under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2953.32. During a hearing on September 23, 2025, the city did not oppose her application, and the victim of the crime also did not object. The trial court initially indicated it would seal T.N.S.'s conviction but did not formally grant her request for expungement, leading to the appeal.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Timothy W. Clary, reviewed the case and found that the trial court had erred in its decision. The court noted, "The trial court’s purported reliance on a policy of sealing records rather than expunging them, even where an applicant makes an application for expungement and satisfies the statutory requirements, is erroneous." This ruling emphasized that the trial court should have granted the expungement based on the statutory criteria.
The appeals court highlighted that T.N.S. had met all necessary conditions for expungement, including the absence of pending criminal proceedings and the lack of objections from the prosecutor or the victim. The court's findings indicated that T.N.S. had been rehabilitated and that her interests in expungement outweighed any government interest in maintaining her records.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking expungement in Ohio. It clarifies that trial courts must adhere strictly to the statutory requirements when considering expungement applications. The court's decision reinforces the idea that personal rehabilitation and the lack of opposition from relevant parties should lead to the granting of expungement requests.
The ruling could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation and have fulfilled their legal obligations can have their records expunged. This is particularly important for those seeking employment or housing, as a criminal record can significantly hinder opportunities.
What's Next
The trial court is now required to grant T.N.S.'s application for expungement, effectively removing her criminal damaging conviction from public records. There is no indication in the court filing that T.N.S. plans to appeal this decision further, and the case will now return to the lower court for implementation of the expungement.