COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71753 STATE OF OHIO : ACCELERATED CASE : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION DEON BROYLES : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 8, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-333105 JUDGMENT: REVERSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: ARTHUR A. ELKINS (#0061094) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-Appellee: DONALD J. O'CONNOR (#0016122) 820 Rockefeller Building 614 Superior Avenue N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio ("appellant"), appeals from a judgment granting defendant-appellee, Deon Broyles' ("appellee"), application to seal all official records. Appellant assigns the following error for our review: PURSUANT TO R.C. 2953.52 (B)(2)(b), THE TRIAL COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO SEAL APPELLEE'S RECORD WHERE APPELLEE HAD A CRIMINAL CASE PENDING IN THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT AT THE TIME OF THE EXPUNGEMENT HEARING. Finding appellant's appeal to have merit, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. I. On January 31, 1996, appellee was indicted in a one count indictment. The indictment charged appellee with grand theft of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2913.02. On June 4, 1996, appellant dismissed the charge against appellee. On June 27, 1996, appellee filed an application with the trial court to seal all official records. The trial court held a hearing on December 2, 1996, and appellee's application was granted. On December 13, 1996, the trial court issued a Judgment of Expungement. II. In its sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to seal appellee's record. In particular, appellant asserts that appellee had a criminal case - 3 - pending in the Cleveland Municipal Court at the time of the expungement hearing. R.C. 2953.52 governs sealing of official records after dismissal of the proceedings and vests the trial court with considerable discretion to grant or deny a motion for expungement. State v. Grove (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 318, 320. Therefore, we will review the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion refers to more than an error of law or judgment; it connotes an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable judgment. Cedar Bay Constr., Inc. v. Fremont (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 19, 22. R.C. 2953.52 (B)(2) and (B)(3) state, in pertinent part, the following: (B)(2) The court shall do each of the following: (a) Determine whether the person was found not guilty in the case, or the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed * * *; (b) Determine whether criminal proceedings are pending against the person; (c) If the prosecutor has filed an objection in accordance with division (B)(1) of this section, consider the reasons against granting the application specified by the prosecutor in the objection; (d) Weigh the interest of the person in having the official records pertaining to the case sealed against the legitimate needs, if any, of the government to maintain those records. (B)(3) If the court determines, after complying with division (B)(2) of this section, - 4 - that the person was found not guilty in the case, that the complaint, indictment, or information in the case was dismissed ***; that no criminal proceedings are pending against the person; and the interests of the person in having the records pertaining to the case sealed are not outweighed by any legitimate governmental needs to maintain such records, the court shall issue an order directing that all official records pertaining to the case be sealed and that, * * * the proceedings in the case be deemed not to have occurred. The mandates set forth in R.C. 2953.52 (B)(3) make it clear that the court shall order the record be sealed only if all of R.C. 2953.52 (B)(2)'s requirements are met. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellee's application to seal official records. Although evidence set forth in the record reveals that appellant did, in fact, dismiss its case against appellee, and that the trial court weighed the parties competing interests, the trial court did not acknowledge that criminal proceedings were pending against appellee at the time of the hearing. In light of this fact, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting appellee's application. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is sustained. Judgment reversed. - 5 - This cause is reversed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .