State v. Gainey, 2015 Ohio 3119

State appeals from grant to seal Lakeisha Gainey’s theft conviction record under R.C. 2953.32(A)(1).
Gainey was convicted in 1994 of theft (fourth-degree felony) with suspended sentence and community control; restitution and 100 hours of community service were ordered.
Gainey later was declared an absconder (1997); she was arrested (2005) and remained under community control until discharge dates extended to 2006 and 2007.
An entry terminated community control unsuccessfully in 2007, noting noncompliance with terms.
Approximately seven years later, Gainey sought to seal; she admitted completing 75 of 100 required community-service hours.
The trial court granted sealing despite incomplete community service; the State appealed challenging eligibility under R.C. 2953.32(A)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to seal due to incomplete community service	State argues Gainey was not an eligible offender for sealing	Gainey argues she could complete remaining service and court should consider, or that jurisdiction remains to require completion	Yes; court lacked jurisdiction because not all sentencing terms were completed
Whether restitution nonpayment deprived eligibility	State contends outstanding restitution prevents final discharge	Gainey testified restitution paid; dispute over documentation	moot after first issue; court remanded to deny sealing
Whether Aguirre requires completion of all sentencing terms before sealing	Aguirre supports denial until all terms fulfilled	Sealing premature otherwise; probation termination does not bar future completion	Court adopted Aguirre principle that all terms must be satisfied for eligibility
Whether stay or remand is appropriate to allow completion of community service			Not governing due to ineligibility; remand to deny
Whether the trial court erred by treating the discharge as final despite incomplete community service			Yes; discharge did not render Gainey eligible; seal reversed

State v. Black, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-338, 2014-Ohio-4827 (2014) (eligibility requires complete sentencing terms before sealing)
State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531, 533 (2000) (2000) (sealing is a privilege, not a right)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636, 639 (1996) (1996) (sealing requires eligibility under statute)
Aguirre, Ohio St.3d , 2014-Ohio-4603 (2014) (final discharge requires completion of all sentencing requirements)
Hoover, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-818, 2013-Ohio-3337 (2013) (final discharge depends on satisfaction of restitution; jurisdictional considerations)
Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226 (2011) (trial court may retain jurisdiction to address violations during probation)
State v. Thomas, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-985, 2014-Ohio-2912 (2014) (reaffirms ongoing court jurisdiction post-probation in certain contexts)
In re White, 165 Ohio App.3d 288, 2006-Ohio-233 (2006) (final discharge notion tied to satisfaction of conditions)