2011 Ohio 4275
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant C.T. was adjudicated delinquent in 2004 on ten counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor under R.C. 2907.322.
- He was committed to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) for 18 months to his 21st birthday.
- In 2006 he was classified as a juvenile sex offender and required to register under R.C. 2950.04(A)(2).
- He was placed on DYS parole in 2006 and discharged from parole around February 2007.
- In 2010 he moved to declassify and the court subsequently removed him from sex offender registration requirements.
- In December 2010 he filed an application to seal his juvenile record; the juvenile court denied in January 2011 as untimely, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-year waiting period applies to sealing under R.C. 2151.356(C)(1)(a) after declassification. | C.T. contends declassification is not an “order in relation to the adjudication.” | State argues declassification order falls within “order in relation to the adjudication.” | Yes; two-year waiting applies, denial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (Ohio 2009) (sealing juvenile records promotes rehabilitation goals)
- State v. S.R., 63 Ohio St.3d 590 (Ohio 1992) (statutory interpretation to determine legislative intent)
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 3661 Ohio St.2d 101 (Ohio 1973) (interpretation of statutes requires plain language understanding)
- State v. Link, 2003-Ohio-6798 (Ohio App. 2003) (presume legislature means what it says in statutory language)
- State v. Virasayachack, 138 Ohio App.3d 570 (Ohio App. 2000) (interpretation of scope of sealing provisions)