Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Meads

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1241
• Docket Number: 9-25-17, 9-25-18

• Judges: Willamowski

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.4K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Motion to Seal Records of dismissed charges. Trial court erred by reviewing a motion to seal charges dismissed under R.C. 2953.32 rather than R.C. 2953.33.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Meads, 2026-Ohio-1241.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-25-17
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

NICHOLAS MEADS, OPINION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-25-18
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

NICHOLAS MEADS, OPINION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeals from Marion Municipal Court
Trial Court Nos. CRB1900554 and CRB1901939

Judgments Reversed

Date of Decision: April 6, 2026

APPEARANCES:

Darren L. Meade and Marcus A. Ross for Appellant

Jeff Ratliff for Appellee
Case Nos. 9-25-17, 9-25-18

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Appellant Nicholas Meads (“Meads”) brings these appeals from

judgments of the Marion Municipal Court denying his petition to have his prior

criminal record expunged. On appeal Meads claims that the judgments are against

the weight of the evidence because the trial court did not properly weigh the

evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments are reversed.

{¶2} In March 2019, Meads was charged with one count of domestic

violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25, a misdemeanor of the first degree. As a result

of that charge, the victim was granted a civil protection order. Subsequently, Meads

allegedly violated that order and was charged with a violation of that order, a

violation of R.C. 2919.27, a misdemeanor of the first degree. On July 16, 2019, the

domestic violence charge was dismissed without prejudice for a “lack of substantial

credible evidence to support the State’s burden of proof.” Later, the State entered

into a plea agreement in a third case1, where the State agreed to dismiss the civil

protection order violation if Meads agreed to plead no contest in the other case.

Thus, on September 25, 2019, that charge was dismissed without prejudice.

{¶3} On April 21, 2025, Meads filed an application to seal the criminal

record of these charges, along with the conviction in a third case. A hearing was

held on June 11, 2025. Meads, who lived out of state at the time of the hearing,

1
The other case was a disorderly conduct charge that is a companion case on appeal and is assigned case
number 9-25-19.

-2-
Case Nos. 9-25-17, 9-25-18

attended remotely. At the hearing, the State took no position on the motion.

However, the victim of the disorderly conduct, Meads’ former girlfriend and the

mother of his child, objected to the expungement of the disorderly conduct

conviction and the sealing of the dismissed domestic violence charge and violation

of a CPO charge, and made a statement. At the end of the hearing, the trial court

denied the motion to seal the dismissed charges. Meads appealed and raised the

following assignment of error on appeal.

The trial court abused its discretion when it denied [Meads’]
motion for expungement2 because the [trial court] did not
properly weigh the competing interests involved and the [trial
court’s decision is not supported by the record.

{¶4} The determination whether to seal records after a not guilty finding, a

dismissal of proceedings, a grand jury no bill, or a pardon is governed by R.C.

2953.33. This statute provides that any person named in a complaint which has

been dismissed may apply to the court for an order to seal the records at any time

after the entry is filed. R.C. 2953.33(A)(1).

(B)(1) Upon the filing of an application pursuant to division (A) of
this section, the court shall set a date for a hearing and shall notify the
prosecutor in the case of the hearing on the application. . . . The
prosecutor may object to the granting of the application by filing a
written objection with the court not later than thirty days prior to the
date set for the hearing. The prosecutor shall specify in the objection
the reasons the prosecutor believes justify a denial of the application.

2
Initially Meads filed a motion to seal the records in all three cases. At the hearing, Meads moved to amend
the motion to request an expungement of the disorderly conduct record (9-25-19). The domestic violence
record (9-25-17) and the protection order violation record (9-25-18) are not subject to expungement, but may
be sealed. R.C. 2953.33(C)(1). Thus, the motion in regards to the cases in this appeal deal with the sealing
of the records.

-3-
Case Nos. 9-25-17, 9-25-18

(2) The court shall do each of the following, . . .

(a)(i) Determine whether . . . the complaint, indictment, or information
in the case was dismissed, . . . ;

(ii) If the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was
dismissed, determine whether it was dismissed with prejudice or
without prejudice and, if it was dismissed without prejudice,
determine whether the relevant statute of limitations has expired.

(b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the
person;

(c) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with (B)(1)
of this section, consider the reasons against granting the application
specified by the prosecutor in the objection;

...

(e) Weigh the interests of the person in having the official records
pertaining to the case sealed or expunged, as applicable, against the
legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records.

R.C. 2953.33(B). Once the trial court has determined that the case was dismissed,

any appealable statute of limitations has expired, and the defendant has no pending

criminal proceedings, the trial court will grant the motion to seal the records as long

as the interests of the person in getting the records sealed are not outweighed by a

legitimate governmental need to retain such records. R.C. 2953.33(B)(3) and (4).

Unlike cases in which a conviction is obtained, the statements of victims are not one

of the considerations for determining the government’s need for the records to be

retained.

-4-
Case Nos. 9-25-17, 9-25-18

{¶5} Here, the trial court stated that it was considering the motion pursuant

to R.C. 2953.32. The trial court should have been using R.C. 2953.33 for these

dismissed charges. It did not address the distinctions between sealing or expunging

records for which a conviction was obtained and ones where no conviction was

obtained. The trial court considered the statements of the victim to the dismissed

charges when ruling on the motion to seal the records despite this not being one of

the factors to be considered when no conviction is obtained. Pursuant to R.C.

2953.33, the trial court should only have considered the information provided by

the movant and the objections raised by the State, of which there were none. In its

judgment entry, the trial court referred to the wrong statute and noted that it had

considered the victim’s statements in making a determination – a factor not

permitted under R.C. 2953.33. Thus the judgments in these cases are contrary to

law. For this reason, the assignment of error is sustained.

Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and

argued, the judgments of the Marion Municipal Court are reversed and the matter is

remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment Reversed
And Cause Remanded

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.

-5-
Case Nos. 9-25-17, 9-25-18

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is

sustained and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgments of the

trial court are reversed with costs assessed to Appellee for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The causes are hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

and for execution of the judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

John R. Willamowski, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

Mark C. Miller, Judge

DATED:
/hls

-6-