 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Andrasek1/9/2003
JUDGMENT: REVERSED.
. Defendant-appellant Rose Marie Andrasek (d.o.b. April 20, 1976) appeals on the accelerated docket from the trial court's denial of her application to seal certain criminal court records pursuant to R.C. 2953.52. For the reasons adduced below, we reverse.
. A review of the record on appeal indicates that Andrasek was indicted on October 29, 1998, for a fifth-degree felony offense involving acts committed at a local department store. Andrasek was accepted into a county pretrial diversion program, which she completed successfully. As a result of this success, the court dismissed the felony case with prejudice on November 19, 2001.
. On December 5, 2001, Andrasek filed an application to seal the records of the dismissed felony case. The state declined to file an objection to this application. See letter from the prosecutor dated March 15, 2002.
. The court had the probation department prepare a report relative to the application. This report indicated that Andrasek had a 1995 misdemeanor conviction in the City of Garfield Heights for driving under the influence , and 1998 misdemeanor convictions in the City of Bedford for driving under the influence and reckless operation.
. The trial court conducted a hearing on the application in open court on May 2, 2002. During this hearing the court noted the earlier convictions contained in the probation report and stated that the court, which was never made aware of those convictions, would never have referred the felony case to the diversion program had the court known of the earlier convictions at the time of the referral decision. Tr. 18, 35. The court also noted that Andrasek was not a child at the time of the 1998 commission of the Bedford offenses and was out on bond during the felony case when she was convicted of the Bedford offenses. Tr. 35.
. Andrasek noted that she had completed the diversion program, made full restitution to the department store, and paid all court costs associated with the felony case. Andrasek, a single mother supporting a six-year-old son in parochial school without benefit of public assistance or court-ordered child support from the father of the child, and who attends regular meetings at Alcoholics Anonymous as she copes with a drinking problem, also indicated that she was gainfully employed and has had no other criminal offenses besides those identified herein. Andrasek sought the application to seal "so she can pursue gainful employment" and "rise above the position she is now in." Tr. 10. In other words, she hoped to better her employment prospects and advance her career, which efforts would be harmed should the record in the low-level felony matter not be sealed. Tr. 22. The state reiterated that it did not object to the sealing of the record. Tr. 17.
. The court, denying the application, held "that in the interest of society and the State of Ohio that the government does have a legitimate governmental need to maintain these records and the Court is not going to issue an order sealing these records *." Tr. 39.
. The lone assignment of error states the following: "The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's application to seal the record of her case pursuant to R.C. 2953.52." Appellant's brief at 1.
. The standard of review for this assignment was recently provided in State v. Newton, Franklin App. Nos. 01AP-1443 and 01AP-1444, 2002-Ohio-5008, at -9, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 5034:
. "[*P7] Pursuant to R.C. 2953.52(A)(1), any person who has had a criminal indictment dismissed or had been found not guilty of an offense may request that the records of thos
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|