State v. Boehm
2017 Ohio 4285
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Shelly M. Boehm was indicted for fourth-degree felony theft of dangerous drugs for stealing amphetamine pills while employed as a housekeeper in April 2014.
- Boehm moved for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) under R.C. 2951.041; the prosecutor did not recommend ILC prior to the hearing.
- Boehm had a previously sealed nonviolent felony conviction under R.C. 2953.32; the PSI and sealing records were not in the record before the court.
- At an August 10, 2016 hearing the trial court considered the sealed prior conviction (based on a probation recommendation) and found Boehm eligible and suitable for ILC; the state objected.
- The State appealed the trial court’s grant of ILC, arguing a sealed prior felony or the absence of a prosecutorial recommendation should bar ILC.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed eligibility de novo and affirmed the trial court, holding the court may consider sealed convictions and the prosecutor’s pre-approval is not a statutory veto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior conviction sealed under R.C. 2953.32 or the lack of a prosecutorial recommendation prevents eligibility for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction under R.C. 2951.041 | State: A sealed prior felony can be used by the State (per R.C. 2953.32(E)) and absence of prosecutorial recommendation means ILC should not be granted | Boehm: A conviction sealed under R.C. 2953.32 is treated as if it did not occur for eligibility purposes unless the court chooses to consider it; prosecutor has no statutory veto over ILC | Court: Trial court may consider sealed prior convictions under R.C. 2953.32(C)(2); R.C. 2953.32(E) does not create a prosecutorial veto; Boehm was eligible and suitable, so grant of ILC affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shoaf, 140 Ohio App.3d 75 (10th Dist. 2000) (describing ILC purpose to treat substance abuse underlying criminal conduct)
- State v. Baker, 131 Ohio App.3d 507 (7th Dist. 1998) (ILC rationale and policy considerations)
- State v. Gadd, 66 Ohio App.3d 278 (2d Dist. 1990) (granting ILC lies within trial court's discretion)
- State v. Evans, 102 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 2005) (apply plain statutory text when unambiguous)
- Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins, 101 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 2004) (statutory text controls when clear)
- Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 96 Ohio St.3d 170 (Ohio 2002) (courts must apply unambiguous statutes)
- BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (U.S. 2004) (statutory-interpretation principle: start and end with textual analysis)