2019 Ohio 3383
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- J.M.S. was indicted in two Franklin County cases for fifth-degree theft in 2015; both cases were dismissed after he completed intervention in lieu of conviction.
- In July 2018 J.M.S. applied to seal the records under R.C. 2953.52 (dismissed cases).
- The State objected, arguing J.M.S. was ineligible because he had an active community-control sentence (conviction for attempted violation of a protection order in a separate 2017 case) through May 24, 2020.
- The trial court found that community control did not constitute a "pending criminal proceeding" and granted the sealing application.
- The State appealed, arguing community control does constitute pending criminal proceedings and thus renders J.M.S. ineligible under R.C. 2953.52.
- The Tenth District reversed, holding that a case remains pending while community control is being executed and so the applicant was ineligible to seal the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether community control constitutes "pending criminal proceedings" under R.C. 2953.52 | Community control keeps the original criminal case pending, so applicant is ineligible to seal records | R.C. 2953.52 allows filing at any time after dismissal; community control is not a pending proceeding for sealing purposes | Court held community control = pending criminal proceedings; sealing was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines "abuse of discretion" standard)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 1988) (definition and understanding of "pending" in litigation context)
- State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 2016) (community-control sanctions are imposed at sentencing and form part of the sentence)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2004) (upon violation of community control the court may resentence the offender)