State v. A.V., 2018 Ohio 785

A.V. pled no contest to three fifth-degree felonies: attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2923.02/2907.04), importuning, and possession of criminal tools; he received concurrent six-month prison terms and five years post-release control, and was subject to a 10-year sex-offender registration requirement.
In February 2017 A.V. moved to seal his conviction record; the trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) excludes unlawful sexual conduct with a minor from sealing and (the court thought) that exclusion extended to attempts.
A.V. appealed, arguing the statute does not unambiguously exclude attempts and that the trial court therefore erred.
The central legal question on appeal was whether convictions for attempts to commit offenses listed in R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) are themselves excluded from sealing when the statutory list mentions only the completed offenses (e.g., 2907.04) but not the attempt statute (2923.02).
The Ninth District reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and concluded R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) is unambiguous and does not list attempts; therefore an attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is not categorically excluded from sealing under that subsection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) precludes sealing of a conviction for attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor	A.V.: statute’s plain text omits “attempt,” so attempted offense is not excluded; trial court retains jurisdiction to consider sealing	State: appellate decisions and practical reading mean an attempt to commit a listed offense should be treated as excluded because the underlying substantive offense appears on the list	Court: Held attempt is not included in §2953.36(A)(2); trial court erred to treat attempts as excluded and thus lack jurisdiction was incorrect

State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (Ohio 2000) (sealing is a privilege not a right)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Ohio 1996) (applicant must meet R.C. 2953.32 eligibility requirements)
State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2009) (standard of review for statutory interpretation cited)
State v. V.M.D., 148 Ohio St.3d 450 (Ohio 2016) (statutory interpretation: apply clear, unambiguous text as written)
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Cleveland, 37 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 1988) (court must give effect to words used and not insert omitted words)