State v. K.T., 2017 Ohio 8748

In 2012 K.T. pled guilty to fourth-degree felony assault (R.C. 2903.13) after an original indictment for felonious assault; she was sentenced to community control and discharged in 2013.
In December 2016 K.T. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal (expunge) the conviction and submitted evidence of rehabilitation, hardship, education, and letters of support.
The State objected, arguing R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) bars sealing for convictions that are "offenses of violence" when the offense is a felony; R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(a) lists R.C. 2903.13 (assault) as an "offense of violence."
The trial court acknowledged assault is an offense of violence but granted the sealing based on K.T.’s rehabilitation and employment hardship.
On appeal the Tenth District reversed, holding statutory language bars sealing felony offenses of violence (including felony assault) regardless of rehabilitation; the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in sealing a felony assault conviction	State: R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) makes felony "offenses of violence," including assault, ineligible for sealing	K.T.: Rehabilitation and hardship justify sealing; trial court may grant despite assault being an offense of violence	Reversed: statute prohibits sealing felony "offenses of violence" (including felony assault); rehabilitation irrelevant to eligibility

State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (1999) (expungement is a statutory privilege, not a right)
State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (uses "sealing" as common term for statutory expungement procedures)
State v. V.M.D., 148 Ohio St.3d 450 (2016) (statutory construction: courts cannot seal felony "offenses of violence" listed in R.C. 2901.01(A)(9))
City of Euclid v. El-Zant, 143 Ohio App.3d 545 (2001) (interpretation of R.C. 2953.36 language concerning assault and expungement)