State v. Bissantz
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDoan, J.
The court of appeals premised its dismissal upon R.C. 2945.67,3 determining that the state may not directly appeal an entry of *121expungement. We hold that R.C. 2945.67 is inapplicable to the state’s right of direct appeal in expungement cases for the reason that expungement under R.C. 2953.32 is a postconviction relief proceeding, remedial in nature, and is governed by the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure as applicable to civil actions.
Our holding follows paragraph two of the syllabus in State v. Nichols (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 40, 11 OBR 188, 463 N.E. 2d 375, wherein this court ruled that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Barker v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1980
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. LaSalleOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. LaSalleOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- In Matter of Koehler, 07ap-913 (7-10-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. HeatonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
- State v. NetterOhio Court of Appeals · 1989
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.