State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St. 3d 81

On Dec. 31, 2010, Marlon Pariag was stopped and charged with a traffic offense (driving under suspension, unsealable) and two drug-related offenses (possession of drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia) filed under separate case numbers in Franklin County Municipal Court.
Pariag was convicted of the traffic offense; the two drug charges were dismissed when he pleaded in the traffic case.
Pariag applied to have the records of the dismissed drug charges sealed; the State objected, arguing R.C. 2953.61 bars sealing when charges arise from the same act as an unsealable conviction.
The trial court ordered the dismissed drug-charge records sealed; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning R.C. 2953.61 governs only timing and the cases had separate numbers.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review and reversed the court of appeals, holding R.C. 2953.61 precludes sealing dismissed charges that arose "as a result of or in connection with the same act" as an unsealable conviction, regardless of separate case numbers, and remanded for factual determination whether the charges arose from the same act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.61 precludes sealing records of dismissed charges that arose from the same act as a conviction that cannot be sealed under R.C. 2953.36	R.C. 2953.61 prevents sealing dismissed charges when they arise from the same act as an unsealable conviction; timing provision does not allow partial sealing	R.C. 2953.61 only governs the timing of filing an application to seal, not eligibility to seal dismissed charges; dismissed charges are independent and thus sealable	Court held R.C. 2953.61 precludes sealing dismissed charges that arise from the same act as an unsealable conviction, regardless of separate case numbers; remanded to decide if charges arose from the same act

Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (statutory interpretation standard; de novo review)
State ex rel. Solomon v. Police & Firemen’s Disability & Pension Fund Bd. of Trustees, 72 Ohio St.3d 62 (give effect to legislative intent)
State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 (look to statutory language first)
Zumwalde v. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire Dist., 128 Ohio St.3d 492 (apply clear statutory language as written)
State v. Chappell, 127 Ohio St.3d 376 (construction required only if statute ambiguous)
Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (usage of term "expungement" in Ohio law)
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (terminology and sealing context)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (sealing is a privilege, not a right)
State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (partial sealing problematic; multiple dispositions in one case)
State ex rel. Cordray v. Midway Motor Sales, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 234 (statutes in pari materia; legislative intent)
State v. S.R., 63 Ohio St.3d 590 (R.C. 2953.51 et seq. protects privacy of those not convicted)