2018 Ohio 3327
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2007 D.M. pled guilty to aggravated theft, was sentenced to four years and ordered to pay court costs.
- D.M. filed a pro se motion to seal his conviction in Feb 2016; the trial court denied it in April 2016.
- D.M. submitted a second request (a letter) in Oct–Nov 2017; the court held a hearing, found rehabilitation, sealed the record, and suspended court costs.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to waive costs because D.M. was sentenced before R.C. 2947.23(C) took effect and (2) res judicata barred the second sealing application.
- The Fourth District reversed: it held the trial court could not suspend costs for a sentence that became final before R.C. 2947.23(C), and that res judicata barred D.M.’s successive sealing petition because he showed no material change in circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court jurisdiction to waive/suspend court costs after sentencing | R.C. 2947.23(C) wasn’t in effect at sentencing; costs were final and res judicata bars later waiver | Trial court retained power to suspend costs when it later acted (invoking R.C. 2947.23(C)) | Reversed: court lacked jurisdiction to waive costs because D.M.’s sentence was final before R.C. 2947.23(C) enacted; costs are res judicata |
| Adequacy of State notice and opportunity to be heard before costs were dismissed | State argued it wasn’t given proper notice and hearing on costs dismissal | D.M. relied on submitted materials and hearing evidence | Moot after ruling on jurisdiction; not decided on merits |
| Whether res judicata bars successive application to seal conviction | Successive petition is barred because the earlier petition was denied and D.M. alleged no material change | D.M. asserted changed circumstances (worsened health, employment difficulties) and need for sealing | Reversed: res judicata bars second sealing; D.M. did not demonstrate sufficient change in circumstances |
| Whether sealing decision was an abuse of discretion on the merits | State argued sealing was unsupported by facts (rehabilitation, unpaid costs/restitution) | D.M. argued rehabilitation, need for employment, and changed health | Moot after res judicata disposition; not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (Ohio 2004) (trial courts must include costs in sentence but may waive for indigency)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2006) (sentencing entry is final and appealable as to costs; failure to request waiver at sentencing waives the issue)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2010) (waiver of costs permitted for indigent defendants but is discretionary)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata/claim preclusion bars subsequent actions on same claims)
- O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 2007) (doctrine of res judicata includes claim preclusion and collateral estoppel)
- Fort Frye Teachers Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392 (Ohio 1998) (collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues actually and necessarily decided)