State v. A.L.M.
2017 Ohio 2772
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.L.M. has multiple prior misdemeanor convictions from 2004–2014; most relevant is a 2014 conviction (Case No. 14CR-1392) for attempted improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle (misdemeanor 1st degree).
- On August 17, 2016, A.L.M. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal the record of the 2014 conviction; the State objected on eligibility grounds.
- The trial court granted the sealing application on October 14, 2016, despite recognizing A.L.M. exceeded the misdemeanor limit for an "eligible offender," citing compassionate reasons (employment).
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because A.L.M. was not an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.31(A).
- The Tenth District reviewed eligibility de novo (statutory interpretation) and abuse-of-discretion for the sealing grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (A.L.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.L.M. is an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.31(A) for sealing a misdemeanor conviction | A.L.M. has more than two misdemeanor convictions and therefore is ineligible; trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant sealing | Argued some convictions should be counted as one (same act / same official proceeding) and eligibility was satisfied | Held: A.L.M. is not an eligible offender. Although two pairs of convictions could be merged, he still has more than two misdemeanors; trial court lacked jurisdiction to seal and its order was reversed |
| Whether the appellate court should order remedial measures tied to statements A.L.M. made while the record was improperly sealed | State asked the court to require A.L.M. to correct any false denials made during the period the record was sealed | A.L.M. sought the benefit of sealing while appeal was pending (employment reasons) | Held: Moot. Appellate relief is reversal and remand to vacate the sealing and dismiss the application; the court will not retain jurisdiction to impose further corrective orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of "abuse of discretion")
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (legal issues reviewed de novo)
- State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (expungement/sealing is a privilege, not a right)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (expungement is an act of grace)
- State v. Thomas, 64 Ohio App.2d 141 (statutory requirements for expungement must be strictly followed)