State v. P.G.

2026-08-25

Summary · law.co

Holding. The trial court's denial of expungement was erroneous once it found that P.G.'s interest in sealing the record outweighed the government's interest. The judgment of the Licking County Municipal Court is vacated and remanded for the trial court to issue an order expunging P.G.'s record.

P.G. sought to expunge her 2010 convictions for drug possession and possession of drug instruments under Ohio's expungement statute. At the hearing on her motion, the trial court initially determined that P.G.'s interest in sealing her record outweighed the government's interest in maintaining it. However, when P.G.'s counsel clarified that expungement (not merely sealing) was being requested, the trial court reversed course and denied the expungement motion while granting only a sealing order, reasoning that the government's interest in keeping a sealed record outweighed P.G.'s interest in expunging it.

P.G. appealed, arguing that the trial court's own finding—that her interests outweighed the government's—logically required expungement rather than denial. The State conceded on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the expungement motion after making that finding. The appellate court sustained P.G.'s first assignment of error based on the State's concession.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether trial court can deny expungement after finding defendant's interest in sealing outweighs government's interest
Distinction between sealing and expungement under Ohio law
Trial court's authority and reasoning in expungement proceedings

Procedural posture

P.G. appealed the trial court's December 16, 2025 order denying her motion to expunge 2010 drug-related convictions, which was memorialized by written order on January 15, 2026.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

[Cite as State v. P.G., 2026-Ohio-3319.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2026 CA 00004

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Licking County Municipal

Court, Case No. 10CRB01862

P.G.

Judgment: Vacated and Remanded

Defendant - Appellant

Date of Judgment Entry: August 25, 2026

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges

APPEARANCES: Tricia Moore, City of Newark Law Director, Michael S. Cox, Jr., Assistant Law Director, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Andrew S. Pollis, Maya Simek, Milton and Charlotte Kramer Law Clinic Case Western Reserve University School of Law, for Defendant-Appellant.

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant P.G. appeals the December 16, 2025 Journal Entry

entered by the Licking County Municipal Court, which denied her motion to expunge.

Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1

{¶2} On December 1, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to expunge conviction

pursuant to R.C. 2953.32. Therein, Appellant sought expungement of her 2010 convictions

for possession of drugs, a misdemeanor of the third degree, and possession of drug

instruments, a misdemeanor of the second degree. The State did not file a response to the

motion.

{¶3} The trial court conducted a hearing on December 16, 2025. The State indicated

it had no objections to Appellant’s motion. Counsel for Appellant detailed the facts which

established “[a]ll the elements of the expungement statutes [had] been fully met.” Transcript

of Expungement Hearing at p. 3. The trial court found Appellant’s “interest in sealing the

record of the files outweighs the governments [sic] interest in maintaining the record and for

that reason the court is going to grant the motion and I will order that the records be sealed.”

Id.

{¶4} Counsel for Appellant immediately advised the trial court Appellant was

requesting an expungement. The trial court stated it would deny the motion to expunge, but

would grant the motion to seal. As grounds for the denial, the trial court found “the

government’s interest in keeping a sealed record does outweigh [Appellant’s] interest in

expunging it.” Id. at p. 5. The trial court memorialized its decision via Order filed January

15, 2026.

{¶5} It is from that order Appellant appeals, raising the following assignments of

error:

A Statement of the Facts is not necessary for our disposition of this appeal.

I. THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO GRANT

EXPUNGEMENT, ONCE IT FOUND THAT P.G.’S INTEREST IN

SEALING THE RECORDS OUTWEIGHED THE GOVERNMENT’S,

REQUIRES REVERSAL.

II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ABSENCE OF REVIEWABLE

FINDINGS REQUIRES REMAND.

{¶6} In its Brief to this Court, the State concedes the trial court erred in denying

Appellant’s motion to expunge.

{¶7} Based upon the State’s concession, Appellant’s first assignment of error is

sustained.

{¶8} In light of our disposition of Appellant’s first assignment of error, we find

Appellant’s second assignment of error to be moot.

{¶9} The judgment of the Licking County Municipal Court is vacated and the matter

remanded for the trial court to issue an order expunging Appellant’s record.

{¶10} Costs waived.

By: Hoffman, P.J.

Montgomery, J. and

Popham J. concur.