State v. Ofori, 2023 Ohio 1460

Jesse Ofori filed applications (Mar 2022 and July 2022) to seal four misdemeanor convictions (forgery 2011; unauthorized use of property 2012 & 2016; criminal damaging 2014).
First application was denied after a hearing for lack of demonstrated rehabilitation; Ofori did not appeal that denial.
At the second application hearing the city and county prosecutors did not object; Ofori presented evidence of employment, an associate degree, plans to continue college, resolution of license issues, and family responsibilities.
The trial court again denied sealing, citing (1) insufficient evidence of rehabilitation (citing subsequent contacts with the criminal-justice system) and (2) that the government’s interest in public access outweighed Ofori’s interest in sealing.
On appeal the state and city abandoned defending the government-interest finding and instead argued res judicata and asserted the initial-hearing transcript was necessary; the appellate court found res judicata forfeited and the transcript unnecessary.
Although the appellate court criticized the trial court’s vague government-interest rationale, it affirmed based on the unchallenged finding that Ofori had not been rehabilitated to the court’s satisfaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying sealing by finding the government’s interest outweighed Ofori’s interest	State/city did not defend the government-interest finding on appeal (they raised other defenses)	Ofori: trial court’s balancing lacked sound reasoning and was unsupported	Court: Even if government-interest rationale was weak, denial is affirmed because Ofori did not challenge the court’s separate finding of insufficient rehabilitation
Whether successive sealing applications were barred by res judicata	State: res judicata bars successive applications (argued on appeal)	Ofori: presented changed circumstances (education, employment, resolved license issues)	Court: Res judicata was not raised below and is forfeited on appeal
Whether absence of transcript from first hearing requires presumption of regularity and reversal	State: without transcript, presume regularity and affirm trial court	Ofori: transcript not required because trial court inquired and held an evidentiary hearing on changed circumstances and record includes current hearing transcript and probation report	Court: Transcript of the initial hearing not necessary to resolve this appeal; appellate record sufficed

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard)
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620 (sealing statutes are remedial and must be liberally construed)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (when record is incomplete, appellate court presumes regularity of lower-court proceedings)
State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97 (discusses limits/grounds for relief in postconviction contexts cited by this court)
State v. Cope, 111 Ohio App.3d 309 (res judicata does not bar successive sealing applications when changed circumstances are shown)
State v. Petrou, 13 Ohio App.3d 456 (expungement recognizes possibility of rehabilitation)
State v. Boddie, 170 Ohio App.3d 590 (discussion of legislative purpose behind expungement)
State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824 (context on sealing as forgiveness and rehabilitation)
State v. M.D., 170 Ohio App.3d 590 (similar appellate discussion of expungement policy)