2016 Ohio 5637
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Aug. 2003 police pursued and arrested C.K.J.; cocaine was found on him and he was charged with OVI, failure to comply (FTC/eluding), and possession. Felony counts were bound over to common pleas court.
- Indictments and docketing produced multiple case numbers: one resulted in an OVI conviction (municipal plea), one in guilty pleas to lesser-included offenses in common pleas (attempted possession and attempted FTC), and one resulted in a grand-jury no-bill.
- In Nov. 2014 C.K.J. applied to seal (expunge) the attempted-possession/attempted-FTC convictions and the no-bill records; the State objected under R.C. 2953.61.
- At a hearing the trial court found the OVI/drunk-driving act was complete before the fleeing, separated the offenses, and granted sealing for both applications.
- The State appealed. The appellate court reviewed factual findings for deference but applied R.C. 2953.61 de novo and reversed, holding the trial court misapplied the statute and could not order sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (C.K.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.61 bars sealing when charges arose from same act but have different dispositions | Charges arose from the same act; when at least one charge has a different final disposition, applicant must be eligible to seal all charges before any are sealed | The offenses were separate acts (possession separate from OVI and fleeing); trial court properly found separation and granted sealing | Reversed: R.C. 2953.61 barred sealing of records connected to the OVI because attempted FTC arose from the same act as the OVI, so sealing was precluded unless all related records were sealable |
| Whether an attempted-possession conviction and a possession no-bill can be sealed where another related OVI conviction is unsealable under R.C. 2953.36 | The attempted-possession and no-bill are not tied to OVI and thus are sealable | The acts are distinct; trial court granted sealing | Partially reversed: attempted-possession and the no-bill cannot be sealed because they are linked by case-docketing to the non-sealable attempted FTC/OVI under Futrall; possession charge may be factually distinct but docketing and R.C. 2953.61/Futrall preclude partial sealing |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding driving (OVI) was complete before the fleeing began | State: driving-under-the-influence was ongoing throughout the events, so fleeing and OVI arise from same act | C.K.J.: drunk-driving was complete before the eluding began; separate acts | Court held the driving/OVI was ongoing and supported both OVI and FTC; trial court erred in separating the acts |
| Whether Futrall and related precedents allow partial sealing when some convictions are statutorily unsealable | State: Futrall prohibits sealing some convictions in a single case when another conviction in that case is statutorily unsealable | C.K.J.: factual distinctions allow partial sealing | Court applied Futrall and Pariag and concluded partial sealing here was precluded; trial court abused its legal application |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (Ohio 2009) (trial court may not seal some convictions in a case when another conviction in that case is statutorily unsealable)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2013) (R.C. 2953.61 precludes sealing a dismissed charge that arose from the same act as an unsealable conviction)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review discussion for mixed factual-legal rulings)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (Ohio 2012) (distinguishing deference to factual findings from review of legal application)