2014 Ohio 2058
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bradberry moved to seal his 2011 theft conviction under R.C. 2953.31; court noted multiple theft convictions and denied sealing.
- Bradberry had a separate 2012 theft conviction for the same offense; two convictions for the same offense were treated as ineligible.
- Trial court held that two same-offense misdemeanors cannot be sealed under the statute.
- Bradberry appealed, arguing misapplication of R.C. 2953.31(A) and the two-misdemeanor eligibility.
- The court reviews questions of law de novo and uses statutory construction to determine legislative intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.31(A) excludes two misdemeanors for the same offense from eligibility. | Bradberry: not ambiguous; two misdemeanors should be sealable. | City: phrase excludes same-offense two misdemeanors. | Unambiguous; two same-offense misdemeanors are ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824 (8th Dist. 2001) (statutory interpretation; standard of review for expungement decisions)
- State v. Futrall, 2009-Ohio-5590 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (issues of law reviewed de novo; interpretation of expungement statutes)
- State v. Ushery, 2013-Ohio-2509 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120515) (interpretation of eligibility under 2953.31(A) de novo)
- Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 (2003-Ohio-4779) (legislative intent; respect for statutory text)
- State v. Mullin, 2014-Ohio-764 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-04-033) (unambiguous language; same-offense qualifier)
- Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629 (2004-Ohio-7107) (statutory construction; plain meaning governs)
- Barth v. Barth, 2007-Ohio-973 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (textual interpretation; plain and ordinary meaning of terms)