2019 Ohio 5120
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- A.H. was convicted in Feb. 2001 of misdemeanor sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.06) and misdemeanor assault (R.C. 2903.13).
- In Feb. 2017 A.H. moved to seal his conviction records under R.C. 2953.31–2953.35, arguing he was an “eligible offender.”
- The General Assembly amended R.C. 2953.31 in Oct. 2018 to expand the definition of “eligible offender,” but R.C. 2953.36 (which excludes certain offenses from the sealing scheme) remained unchanged.
- The trial court granted sealing, finding A.H. an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.31(A); the state appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether R.C. 2953.31–2953.35 even apply and concluded R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) unambiguously bars sealing for convictions under R.C. 2907.06, so the trial court erred.
- A.H.’s constitutional challenge to R.C. 2953.36 was forfeited (not raised below); the court also noted there is no constitutional right to sealing and Pepper Pike’s limited judicial sealing authority has been curtailed by statute and case law.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.31–2953.35 apply to A.H.’s R.C. 2907.06 conviction | A.H.: amended R.C. 2953.31 makes him an "eligible offender" and permits sealing | State: R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) expressly excludes R.C. 2907.06 convictions from those sections | Ruling: R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) unambiguously precludes application; A.H. is ineligible and sealing was improper |
| Whether R.C. 2953.36 is unconstitutional as applied to A.H. | A.H.: exclusion denies equal protection/atonement by categorically barring sealing | State: constitutionality not argued below; no right to sealing exists—statutory grace only | Ruling: constitutional challenge forfeited; even if considered, no constitutional right to sealing and statute treats all 2907.06 offenders alike |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. V.M.D., 148 Ohio St.3d 450 (2016) (R.C. 2953.36 precludes sealing of convictions listed there; eligibility under R.C. 2953.31 is secondary)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (sealing is a legislative grace, not a constitutional right)
- Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (1981) (limited judicial power to seal in exceptional exoneration cases)
- State v. Radcliff, 142 Ohio St.3d 78 (2015) (judicial sealing power is limited and cannot override statute)
- State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006) (clear, unambiguous statutes must be applied as written)
- State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 (2014) (appellate courts may decline forfeited constitutional claims)