State v. Aguirre (Slip Opinion), 144 Ohio St. 3d 179

In 2002 Sharlene Aguirre pleaded guilty to a fourth-degree felony (theft) and was sentenced to five years community control plus restitution: $2,000 to her employer and $32,562.47 to two third-party insurers; she paid some but still owed over $14,000.
Aguirre completed community control in June 2007 but did not finish paying restitution.
In January 2012 Aguirre applied to have her conviction record sealed under R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) (application permitted three years after offender’s “final discharge”).
The trial court granted sealing despite unpaid restitution to insurers; the Tenth District affirmed, reasoning sealing could be allowed and creditors retain collection remedies.
The Tenth District certified conflict with the Eighth District (McKenney) which had held final discharge requires full payment of restitution.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District: it held an offender is not finally discharged for R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) purposes until all court-ordered restitution is paid, so Aguirre was ineligible to seek sealing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an offender may have felony conviction sealed when unpaid court-ordered restitution to third-party insurers remains	Aguirre: sealing may be granted despite unpaid insurer restitution; sealing is remedial and public-interest weighing can justify it; creditors keep collection remedies	State: applicant not eligible until final discharge; unpaid restitution prevents final discharge and the statutory 3-year waiting period from beginning	Court held: applicant not eligible; final discharge requires satisfaction of all sentencing requirements including full restitution, so sealing denied
Whether identity of restitution payee (victim vs insurer) matters to final-discharge inquiry	Aguirre: insurer payee should not bar sealing; interest in rehabilitation and remedial nature of sealing support flexibility	State: payee identity is immaterial if restitution order was lawful at sentencing; when ordered, insurer restitution is part of sentence and must be completed	Court held: payee identity immaterial; if restitution to third party was legally ordered at sentencing (pre-2004 permissible), it must be completed before final discharge is reached

State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97 (2013) (sealing is a statutory privilege, not a right; courts may seal only when eligibility requirements are met)
State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (court may seal only after statutory eligibility conditions are satisfied)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (discusses sealing as a privilege and standards for relief)
State v. Pettis, 133 Ohio App.3d 618 (1999) (an offender is not finally discharged until the sentence imposed has been served)
In re White, 165 Ohio App.3d 288 (2006) (applicant not finally discharged for sealing purposes while restitution remains unpaid)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution has both remedial and punitive aspects)