 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davidson3/25/2003
. Plaintiff-appellant, state of Ohio, appeals from an order of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas which sealed the record of defendant-appellee's, Jessica Davidson's, conviction on one count of attempted aggravated drug possession.
. Appellee's conviction stemmed from events occurring in February 2000, when she was stopped by police on suspicion of driving under the influence . In the process of that investigation, police found in appellee's possession a Schedule II controlled substance known as "Ecstasy." In August 2000, appellee was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In November 2000, appellee entered a guilty plea to one count of attempted aggravated possession of drugs.
. In May 2002, appellee sought the expungement of the drug conviction on the grounds that the drunk driving incident occurred only seven days after her 18th birthday, that she had not had any prior convictions, that she had been at that time a model high school student, that she was continuing to earn high marks at college, that she was involved in the community as a volunteer, and that she had had no further arrests or other evidence of drug or alcohol problems. The trial court granted the expungement on these grounds, additionally stating that, under R.C. 2953.31, " hen two or more convictions result from or are connected with the same act or result from offenses committed at the same time, they shall be counted as one conviction."
. Appellant now raises one assignment of error:
. "The trial court erred in granting the sealing of appellee's record where appellee was ineligible for expungement because she was convicted of an OMVI and a drug offense out of the same set of underlying facts."
. Appellant argues that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.31 and the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Sandlin (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 165, the trial court was not permitted to grant an expungement under these facts. According to the state, R.C. 2953.31 operates to bar expungement in any case in which the defendant also has been convicted of an OMVI offense, even where both convictions result from the same act. Thus, because appellee was convicted of drunk driving and drug possession, the drug possession conviction cannot be expunged.
. Appellee counters that, in enacting R.C. 2953.31, the legislature did not exempt from expungement all offenses arising out of the same occurrence with an OMVI, but, rather, only intended that the OMVI conviction itself be non-expungeable. She further claims that, even if the trial court lacked the statutory authority to expunge her drug conviction, the court still maintained its judicial authority to do so, and that the trial court was permitted to make an exception to the law in extraordinary cases such as her own. Finally, she asserts that her constitutionality-protected privacy interest in having the record sealed outweighed any interest by the state in maintaining the record of her conviction.
. R.C. 2953.31 provides, in part:
. "(A) 'First offender' means anyone who has been convicted of an offense in this state or any other jurisdiction and who previously or subsequently has not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any other jurisdiction. When two or more convictions result from or are connected with the same act or result from offenses committed at the same time, they shall be counted as one conviction. When two or three convictions result from the same indictment, information, or complaint, from the same plea of guilty, or from the same official proceeding, and result from related criminal acts that were committed within a th
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|