State v. Evans
2014 Ohio 2081
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- State of Ohio appeals Franklin County Court of Common Pleas order sealing Shareda Evans's conviction for first-degree misdemeanor attempted patient abuse (R.C. 2903.34).
- Evans filed the sealing application on November 5, 2012; the court granted it on February 22, 2013 after a February 21, 2013 hearing.
- The State previously appealed and this court reversed for lack of demonstrated rehabilitation, remanding for further proceedings (State v. Evans, 2013-Ohio-3891).
- On remand, the State objected on grounds Evans was an ineligible offender as a conviction for an offense of violence; remand hearings were held October 15 and 31, 2013 resulting in a decision to seal again.
- The trial court issued a November 5, 2013 judgment sealing the record; the State timely appealed again seeking reversal on the two issues presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted patient abuse qualifies as an offense of violence | Evans's conviction is an offense of violence under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(c)-(d) due to ‘knowingly’ causing or attempting harm. | The record does not show the offense occurred knowingly rather than recklessly; thus it is not clearly an offense of violence. | Evans's conviction was not proven to be an offense of violence on the record; jurisdiction to seal is not defeated by this issue. |
| Whether the trial court properly found rehabilitation before sealing | The court had to determine rehabilitation as a condition for sealing under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(c). | Evidence at remand showed remorse, employment, mentoring, and counseling suggesting rehabilitation. | Remand for explicit on-record findings on rehabilitation required; the sealing order must be reconsidered with explicit findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koehler v. State, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-913 (2008-Ohio-3472) (expungement standards; rehabilitation contemplated)
- State v. Smith, 2004-Ohio-6668 (3d Dist.) (statutory framework for expungement and rehabilitation considerations)
- Fuller, 2011-Ohio-6673 (10th Dist.) (require explicit rehabilitation findings; no implied finding from sealing order)
- State v. Bates, 2004-Ohio-2260 (5th Dist.) (rehabilitation findings must be explicit on the record)
- In re Esson, 2011-Ohio-5770 (10th Dist.) (explicit findings required; remand to cure statutory compliance)