2019 Ohio 809
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1995 Inscho pleaded no contest to domestic violence after hitting his wife with his vehicle; he was fined $250, jailed 60 days (30 suspended), and ordered to attend counseling.
- In February 2018 Inscho applied to seal/expunge the 1995 conviction under R.C. 2953.31–.36; a probation report recommended granting the application and the State did not object.
- The municipal court found the original 1995 file destroyed; OHLEG and OCN electronic records listed the offense as a "minor misdemeanor," but contained no statutory subsection.
- Based on statutory text in effect in 1995 and the sentence imposed, the municipal court concluded the conviction was for a first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence (an offense of violence) and denied sealing because R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) bars sealing of felonies and first-degree misdemeanors that are offenses of violence.
- Inscho alternatively argued the journal/docket inconsistencies rendered the conviction void because the electronic records allegedly showed a nonexistent minor-misdemeanor conviction, and he asserted the court never corrected the journal.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding (1) the court properly concluded the offense was a first-degree misdemeanor preventing sealing, and (2) the conviction was not void given presumption of regularity and that docket/OCN/OHLEG reports are not the court’s journal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1995 domestic-violence conviction is subject to sealing under R.C. 2953.31–.36 | Inscho (plaintiff-appellant) argued records listing a "minor misdemeanor" permit sealing | Municipal court/State argued statutory classification (1995 law) made it a first-degree misdemeanor offense of violence, which R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) bars from sealing | Denied — conviction is a first-degree misdemeanor offense of violence and not eligible for sealing |
| Whether the conviction is void due to inconsistent docket/OCN/OHLEG entries | Inscho argued electronic entries showing a minor misdemeanor made the journal inconsistent and thus the judgment void | State argued docket/third-party electronic records are not the court’s journal; presumption of regularity supports the sentencing court’s judgment | Denied — conviction not void; journal controls, docket/electronic records are not the official journal and presumption of regularity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petrou, 13 Ohio App.3d 456 (1984) (expungement is an act of grace recognizing rehabilitation)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (expungement is a statutory privilege; courts apply controlling statute in effect at filing)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (expungement is a statutory privilege, not a right)
- State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (trial court's expungement decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion unless purely legal)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (a sentence not in accordance with statutory mandates is void and reviewable at any time)
- State v. Ellington, 36 Ohio App.3d 76 (1987) (journal entry requirements; jury/docket distinctions and that court speaks through its journal)