2018 Ohio 2649
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Aug. 2009 B.H. pleaded guilty to one count of attempted insurance fraud (1st-degree misdemeanor); jail sentence suspended and costs paid.
- In June 2017 B.H. applied to seal (expunge) that conviction under R.C. 2953.32.
- The state opposed, arguing B.H. was ineligible because she had two prior convictions (a 1990 petty theft and a 1991 fifth-degree felony theft) that had themselves been previously sealed.
- At the October 2017 hearing the parties disputed whether the trial court may or must consider sealed prior convictions when determining eligibility under R.C. 2953.31/2953.32.
- The trial court denied the application in a one‑sentence journal entry without stating findings or the basis for its decision.
- B.H. appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether it made required findings on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior sealed convictions must be counted for eligibility under R.C. 2953.31 | State: sealed priors still render B.H. ineligible (she has >1 felony and >1 misdemeanor overall) | B.H.: trial court may ignore sealed priors under R.C. 2953.32(C)(2); sealed records need not be treated as convictions for eligibility | Court: statute uses "may" — trial court has discretion to consider sealed records but must state its findings; remand required because no findings were made |
| Whether trial court must place R.C. 2953.32 findings on the record | State: no specific argument contesting need for findings | B.H.: trial court must state reasons to allow meaningful appellate review | Court: trial court must put findings on the record; summary denial reversed and remanded for findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Helfrich, 2018-Ohio-638 (discussing requirement to determine eligibility before exercising discretion)
- In re S.F.M., 2014-Ohio-5860 (construing R.C. 2953.32(C)(2) as permissive — trial court "may" consider sealed records)
- State v. Hoyles, 2009-Ohio-4483 (discussed in S.F.M.; court distinguishes Hoyles and treats prior sealed convictions and discretion under statute as permissive)