State v. Niesen-Pennycuff
132 Ohio St. 3d 416
Ohio2012Background
- The court interprets R.C. 2951.041(E) to determine trial court discretion to seal records after ILC completion.
- Appellant Regina Niesen-Pennycuff completed an intervention in lieu of conviction and dismissal followed, seeking record sealing.
- Trial court denied sealing post-dismissal but allowed reapplication in 2013; appeals court affirmed.
- Conflict arose with Fortado ( Ninth Dist. ) over whether R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) waiting period applies.
- Majority holds courts may seal immediately under R.C. 2953.52(A)(1) or impose waiting under R.C. 2953.32(A)(1).
- Reading of 2951.041(E) favors remedial ILC purpose and allows flexible sealing procedures, not rigid adherence to 2953.31–36.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 2951.041(E) discretion | Niesen-Pennycuff urged immediate sealing under 2953.52(A)(1). | State urged application of 2953.31–36 via 2953.32(A)(1) waiting period. | Court may seal immediately or with waiting period at discretion. |
| Application of 2953.32 vs 2953.52 after ILC | Sealing should follow 2953.52(A)(1) after dismissal. | Sealing must follow 2953.32(A)(1) waiting period for convicts; not applicable here. | Waiting period not mandatory; either path permissible per court's discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (2010-Ohio-1864) (ILC aims to treat underlying cause, not punish crime)
- State v. Shoaf, 140 Ohio App.3d 75 (2000-Ohio-674) (ILC is remedial, benefits community and individual)
- State v. Ingram, 2005 WL 977820 (2005) (ILC not designed as punishment; aims to rehabilitate)
- State v. Fortado, 108 Ohio App.3d 706 (1996) (Dismissed ILC records; conflict with other district)
- State v. Smith, 2004-Ohio-6668 (2004) (trial court may seal dismissed ILC records without offender filing)
- State v. Mills, 2011-Ohio-377 (2011) (expungement statutes used flexibly alongside ILC)