State v. P.J.F., 2020 Ohio 1522

Defendant P.J.F. was convicted of a fifth-degree felony for nonsupport in Franklin C.P. No. 10CR-3838 and sentenced March 1, 2012 to five years intensive specialized supervision (community control).
As a condition of community control he was ordered to pay $8,857.80 in child-support arrearages to the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCCSEA).
Community control was terminated as unsuccessful on July 21, 2014 after P.J.F. failed to comply with payment conditions.
P.J.F. filed an application to seal his felony conviction on December 17, 2018; the State opposed, arguing unpaid court-ordered payments.
The trial court granted the expungement, reasoning payments were a community-control condition (not restitution) and community control had ended in 2014.
On appeal the State argued P.J.F. was not an "eligible offender" because he had not received a final discharge (i.e., had not completed all sentencing requirements) and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant sealing. A subsequent April 16, 2019 domestic-relations agreed entry (after the sealing order) showed arrearages at zero as of March 29, 2019.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (P.J.F.)	Held
Whether P.J.F. was an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.32 because he received a final discharge and waited three years before applying	P.J.F. had not achieved final discharge because he did not satisfy court-ordered payment obligations; therefore he did not satisfy the mandatory waiting period and was ineligible	Community-control ended in July 2014, so the court-ordered payment was not "restitution" and, with termination of community control, he was eligible to seek sealing	Court held P.J.F. did not demonstrate final discharge (he had not satisfied the payment condition) and thus was ineligible; trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant sealing
Whether the State waived challenge to final-discharge/jurisdiction because it focused on "restitution" below	The State preserved the jurisdictional argument and lack of final discharge is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised despite earlier focus on restitution	P.J.F. argued the State did not preserve the specific final-discharge objection	Court held jurisdictional objections need not be waived; failure to show final discharge deprives court of jurisdiction and may be reviewed de novo

State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179 (2014) (an offender is not "finally discharged" for sealing eligibility until all components of the sentence ordered by the court are satisfied)