2020 Ohio 3519
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2005 A.V. pleaded no contest to attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, importuning, and possession of criminal tools; he was sentenced and notified of sex-offender registration duties.
- In 2017 A.V. moved to seal his conviction record; the trial court denied the motion believing the attempted sexual-conduct conviction was excluded from sealing.
- This Court reversed in 2018, holding the attempted unlawful sexual-conduct conviction was not excluded from the sealing statute, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand the trial court held a hearing, then denied the motion; this Court affirmed in 2019 on grounds A.V. failed to present evidence at that hearing.
- On May 9, 2019 A.V. filed a new motion to seal with exhibits; the trial court denied the motion the next day without setting a hearing.
- On appeal the Ninth District held the trial court violated R.C. 2953.32(B) by failing to set a hearing, reversed the denial, and remanded for further proceedings without addressing the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying the sealing motion without setting a hearing complied with R.C. 2953.32(B) | Trial court denied the motion without affording the statutorily required hearing, preventing fact-gathering | State conceded the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2953.32(B) | Trial court violated R.C. 2953.32(B); denial reversed and cause remanded for a hearing |
| Proper standard of review for sealing denials | A.V. framed the error as an abuse of discretion in failing to hold a hearing | State did not dispute applicable standards | Court explained: abuse of discretion for discretionary determinations; de novo for statutory interpretation |
| Whether attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor is categorically excluded from sealing | A.V. (and prior Ninth Dist. decision) argued such convictions are not excluded from R.C. 2953.36(A)(2) | Trial court previously concluded the conviction was excluded | This Court previously reversed the trial court on that point; in this decision the court did not revisit the merits |
| Whether the merits of sealing should be decided on the record before the court | A.V. argued merits could not be resolved absent statutorily required hearing | State conceded noncompliance with hearing requirement | Court declined to rule on merits and remanded for proceedings consistent with statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (setting a date for a hearing implies that sealing will be considered in the future)