2021 Ohio 1005
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Adele M. Dewey was indicted in Oct. 2016 on two fifth-degree felonies (theft and forgery) but pled to amended counts, each reduced to first-degree misdemeanors.
- Court imposed a jointly recommended sentence: one year community control and a suspended 30-day jail term; Dewey completed probation and was discharged in Feb. 2018.
- Dewey applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal her record after discharge; the State objected, citing her theft as an abuse of trust while serving as treasurer of United Steelworkers Local 811.
- At the sealing hearing Dewey and counsel emphasized rehabilitation, restitution paid, no new charges, and potential relocation/ background‑check harms (volunteering, housing uncertainty), but offered few concrete economic/legal impacts.
- Trial court found it had considered statutory factors, concluded the public’s legitimate need to know (given the trust-related offense) outweighed Dewey’s privacy interests, and denied the motion.
- The Eleventh District affirmed, ruling the court did not abuse its discretion because it considered the required factors and Dewey’s showing was insufficient to overcome the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying motion to seal conviction records | The State: public interest in maintaining records is high where defendant abused a position of trust; the public/employers should have access if Dewey seeks trust positions or employment | Dewey: rehabilitated, paid restitution, no new charges, sealing needed to avoid background-check harms and enable volunteering/relocation | Affirmed—trial court considered statutory factors and reasonably found public interest outweighed Dewey's privacy showing; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial was based solely on nature of the offense (impermissible) | The State: nature of offense is relevant to public interest and supports denial when trust breached | Dewey: court improperly relied only on offense gravity and status as treasurer | Rejected—the court placed findings on the record, considered statutory factors, and did not deny solely because of offense nature |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (Ohio 2000) (sealing convictions is a statutory privilege, not an absolute right)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Ohio 1996) (expungement is an act of grace created by the state)
- Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (Ohio 1981) (legislative purpose of sealing is to spare applicants economic, social, and legal consequences of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 149 Ohio App.3d 350 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (applicant’s privacy interests must be weighed against the public’s right of access)