2016 Ohio 2803
Ohio2016Background
- J.M. applied to seal a 24‑year‑old third‑degree felony conviction (receiving stolen property); he also had a third‑degree misdemeanor (negligent assault) and a fourth‑degree misdemeanor for failing to register a motor vehicle under R.C. 4503.11(A).
- The State objected, arguing the failure‑to‑register conviction must be counted when determining eligibility under R.C. 2953.31(A), making J.M. ineligible for sealing.
- The trial court ordered the felony sealed; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its prior decision (In re Mooney) that such fourth‑degree misdemeanor convictions did not count for eligibility.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted a certified conflict question: whether a R.C. 4503.11(A) fourth‑degree misdemeanor must be counted as a conviction for R.C. 2953.31 eligible‑offender status.
- The Court focused on statutory construction, applying the plain language of R.C. 2953.31(A) and de novo review of the legal eligibility question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fourth‑degree misdemeanor under R.C. 4503.11(A) counts as a conviction for R.C. 2953.31(A) eligibility | State: It counts; therefore J.M. has more than permitted misdemeanors and is ineligible | J.M.: It should not count—post‑2015 amendments made failure‑to‑register a minor misdemeanor and sealing statutes are remedial and should be liberally construed | Held: It counts; R.C. 2953.31(A) plain language treats the offense as a conviction for eligibility purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543 (Ohio 1996) (statutory construction looks first to plain language)
- Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2010) (apply statute as written when language is unambiguous)
- Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 144 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2015) (do not interpret or construe clear statutory language)
- Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510 (Ohio 2010) (apply unambiguous statute as written)
- State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 2013) (sealing/expungement is a privilege created by statute; eligibility requirements must be met)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Ohio 1996) (sealing is an act of grace and a privilege, not a right)