2016 Ohio 7757
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Dwight Pewett, a Cincinnati police officer, was charged with sexual imposition and acquitted after a bench trial.
- Pewett applied under R.C. 2953.52 to have the arrest record sealed; the state did not object and the trial court granted the application on October 5, 2015.
- On October 28, 2015, the state moved for reconsideration, asserting the arrest record was needed for CPD administrative/disciplinary purposes.
- The trial court granted the state’s motion for reconsideration on November 2, 2015.
- Pewett filed a notice of appeal from the November 2, 2015 order granting reconsideration.
- The First District held that a trial-court order granting a motion for reconsideration after a final judgment is a nullity, so the November 2 order was not appealable; the prior sealing order remained in effect and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may grant a motion for reconsideration after a final order sealing records | The state argued expungement is a statutory privilege and thus the sealing order did not affect a substantial right, so reconsideration was permissible | Pewett argued the motion and the order granting reconsideration were void because rules do not authorize post-judgment motions for reconsideration | The court held motions for reconsideration after final judgment are nullities under Ohio civil procedure precedent, so the reconsideration order was void |
| Whether the order granting reconsideration is appealable | State implied the sealing order was not a final, appealable adjudication of a substantial right | Pewett contended he could not be deprived of the sealing order by a void reconsideration order and appealed the reconsideration grant | The court held the reconsideration order was not a final, appealable order (it was a nullity); therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leers, 80 Ohio App.3d 579 (Ohio Ct. App.) (order sealing records after acquittal is a final, appealable order)
- State v. Bissantz, 30 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1987) (civil rules govern expungement proceedings)
- Pitts v. Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (rules do not prescribe motions for reconsideration after final judgment)
- Fifth Third Bank v. Cooker Restaurant Corp., 137 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio Ct. App.) (judgments resulting from motions for reconsideration after final judgment are nullities)