State v. N.J.
2017 Ohio 7089
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant N.J. pleaded guilty in 2006 to one count of pattern of corrupt activity (3rd-degree felony) and two counts of receiving stolen property (5th-degree felonies) in Case No. 05CR-2827; he also had two misdemeanor convictions (1999 housing-code violation; 2012 sale of liquor to a minor).
- In June 2016 N.J. applied to seal the record of the three felony convictions under R.C. 2953.32; the State objected arguing N.J. was not an "eligible offender."
- The trial court held hearings, allowed supplemental briefing, and granted the sealing application in January 2017 without explaining its eligibility analysis.
- The State appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because N.J. did not meet the statutory definition of "eligible offender" in R.C. 2953.31(A).
- The Tenth District assumed (but did not decide) the three felony convictions might count as one conviction, but concluded N.J. still was ineligible because his housing-code misdemeanor counts as a conviction for purposes of the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J. was an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.31(A) and thus could have records sealed | N.J. is not eligible because he has more than the allowable convictions; the housing-code misdemeanor counts as a conviction and, combined with other convictions, exceeds statutory limits | N.J. argued the housing-code violation should not count (relying on Sheibenberger), that multiple felonies might be counted as one, and urged liberal construction and equitable relief | Court reversed trial court: housing-code conviction counts as an "offense"/conviction; N.J. was not an eligible offender, so trial court erred in granting sealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J.M., 148 Ohio St.3d 113 (2016) (Supreme Court construed R.C. 2953.31(A) exceptions and held statutory language must be applied as written)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (legal questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Dayton v. Sheibenberger, 115 Ohio App.3d 529 (2d Dist. 1996) (held housing-code violations are "offenses" for eligibility calculations)