2019 Ohio 4659
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant J.B. filed an application (Nov. 9, 2018) to seal multiple municipal-court records (drug paraphernalia, disorderly conduct, passing bad checks); two other matters were dismissed.
- Probation’s investigation revealed prior common-pleas convictions, including carrying concealed weapons and a first-degree misdemeanor assault (R.C. 2903.13).
- The trial court treated misdemeanor assault as an "offense of violence" under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9), applied R.C. 2953.31(A)(1)(b) eligibility thresholds, and denied the sealing application without holding a hearing.
- J.B. moved for reconsideration; the court denied it. J.B. appealed, raising two assignments of error.
- The Ninth District held the court erred by disposing of the application without the mandatory R.C. 2953.32(B) hearing (because R.C. 2953.36 did not remove J.B.’s assault conviction from the sealing scheme) and remanded for a hearing; it overruled J.B.’s separate claim that R.C. 2953.36 reclassified misdemeanor assault as non-violent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misdemeanor assault is no longer treated as an "offense of violence" for sealing because R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) excludes misdemeanor assault from the list of statutorily exempt convictions | J.B.: R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) effectively excepts misdemeanor assault from the definition of "offense of violence" for sealing purposes | State: R.C. 2953.36 merely lists certain exemptions; it does not alter the general statutory classification of assault as an "offense of violence" under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9) | Court: R.C. 2953.36 does not reclassify misdemeanor assault; it simply lists exemptions—assault remains an "offense of violence" for purposes of eligibility frameworks, but R.C. 2953.36 does not render it statutorily ineligible here |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the sealing application without holding the hearing required by R.C. 2953.32(B) | J.B.: The court was required to hold a sealing hearing; summary denial was improper | State: Argued the court’s approach was lawful (but ultimately conceded error on appeal) | Court: A hearing is mandatory under R.C. 2953.32(B) unless the conviction is statutorily exempt under R.C. 2953.36; because J.B.'s assault was not exempt, the court erred and the case is remanded for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97 (sealing a record is a statutory privilege, not a right; eligibility requirements must be met)
- State v. V.M.D., 148 Ohio St.3d 450 (trial court must determine eligibility under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1)(a); R.C. 2953.36 speaks for itself)
- State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (statute in effect at time of filing the sealing application controls)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (statutory hearing requirements are mandatory, not permissive)