2018 Ohio 1199
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- D.H. (pro se) sought to have the record of a sexual-battery conviction sealed after that conviction was vacated on appeal because he had not been indicted for sexual battery.
- He filed his request while incarcerated, asking the common pleas court to "expunge" the conviction from CR-01-416390.
- The trial court ordered an expungement report but denied the motion without a hearing, citing D.H.’s outstanding warrants and extensive criminal record.
- D.H. appealed, arguing the court erred by not holding a hearing and by failing to follow R.C. 2953.52(B)(2).
- The appellate court treated the motion as governed by R.C. 2953.32 (sealing convictions) rather than R.C. 2953.52 (post-acquittal expungement rules).
- The court found D.H. ineligible under R.C. 2953.31 because he had multiple prior convictions and active warrants, and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying motion to seal without a hearing | State: Court properly denied motion because applicant was ineligible; no procedural error requiring reversal | D.H.: Court should have held a hearing and complied with R.C. 2953.52(B)(2) | Court affirmed: no hearing required because D.H. was statutorily ineligible under R.C. 2953.31; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether R.C. 2953.52 governs this motion | State: R.C. 2953.52 does not apply (applies to acquittals/dismissals/no-bill) | D.H.: Relied on R.C. 2953.52 in his assignments of error | Court agreed R.C. 2953.52 inapplicable; R.C. 2953.32 controls sealing of convictions |
| Whether the conviction's vacation changes sealing eligibility | D.H.: Vacatur of conviction should affect sealing analysis | State: Eligibility assessed under R.C. 2953.31 regardless of vacatur for purposes of this appeal | Court declined to address impact of vacatur because ineligibility was dispositive |
| Standard of review for denial of sealing motion | State: Denial reviewed for abuse of discretion after eligibility determined | D.H.: Argued procedural/legal errors requiring reversal | Court applied de novo review to eligibility and abuse-of-discretion to denial; found ineligibility dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 2013) (distinguishes statutory path for post-acquittal expungement under R.C. 2953.52)
- State v. J.M., 148 Ohio St.3d 113 (Ohio 2016) (court must determine statutory eligibility before considering sealing merits)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2013) (discusses terminology change from "expungement" to "sealing" in R.C. 2953.32)