2022 Ohio 341
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In the 1980s Evans was convicted of misdemeanor assault, receiving stolen property, and disorderly conduct in Hamilton County and later applied to have those misdemeanors sealed.
- Subsequent criminal history included multiple convictions, including three Hamilton County felonies: second-degree robbery, third-degree failure to comply, and third-degree trafficking.
- The prosecutor advised the municipal court that Evans’s later felonies made him ineligible under the statutory definition of an “eligible offender”; nevertheless the trial court granted sealing of the misdemeanor assault conviction.
- The State appealed only the sealing of the assault conviction; it did not challenge the sealing of the other two misdemeanors.
- The court reviewed the legal question de novo and examined the former statutory definition of “eligible offender” in R.C. 2953.31(A)(1), which set eligibility limits by degree and number of prior convictions.
- Evans conceded textual ineligibility under the statute but argued the trial court could nevertheless seal the record based on its inherent discretion; the court rejected that argument and reversed and remanded with instructions to deny sealing of the assault conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans was an “eligible offender” under former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1) to have his 1980s misdemeanor assault sealed | Evans is ineligible because he has multiple felonies and his felonies are not limited to fourth- or fifth-degree felonies as required by subsection (a), and he has more than one felony as barred by subsection (b) | Although Evans conceded he fails the statutory text, the trial court may nonetheless use inherent discretion to seal an old misdemeanor | Court held Evans is ineligible under former R.C. 2953.31(A)(1); rejected inherent-discretion argument; reversed and remanded to deny sealing of the assault conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Floyd, 126 N.E.3d 361 (1st Dist. 2018) (standard of review for sealing generally abuse of discretion; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Futrall, 918 N.E.2d 497 (Ohio 2009) (sealing that involves pure legal issues is reviewed de novo)
- Groch v. GMC, 883 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio 2008) (courts may not override clear legislative policy choices)