State v. Pewett
2016 Ohio 7757
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Dwight Pewett, a Cincinnati police officer, was charged with sexual imposition and acquitted after a bench trial.
- Pewett filed an application under R.C. 2953.52 to seal the criminal record; the state did not object and the trial court granted the application on October 5, 2015.
- The state then moved for reconsideration on October 28, 2015, asserting the arrest record was needed for department administrative/disciplinary purposes.
- The trial court granted the state’s motion to reconsider on November 2, 2015.
- Pewett appealed the November 2 order granting reconsideration.
- The court of appeals held that a trial-court order granting reconsideration after a final judgment is a nullity, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal; the original sealing order remained in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could grant the state’s motion to reconsider a final order sealing records | State: sealing is a privilege; the reconsideration did not affect a substantial right and was permissible | Pewett: motion to reconsider and resulting order are void because rules do not authorize reconsideration after final judgment | The court held motions for reconsideration after final judgment are nullities; the reconsideration order is void and the original sealing order stands |
| Whether the order granting sealing was a final, appealable order | State argued sealing is a privilege and not a final order | Pewett argued the sealing order was final and should have been appealed by the state | Court held the sealing order is a final, appealable order and res judicata applied; state should have appealed that order instead of seeking reconsideration |
| Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over Pewett’s appeal from the reconsideration order | State: (implicit) the order was reviewable | Pewett: appeal is from a nullity and not appealable | Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the reconsideration order is a nullity and not a final appealable order |
| Effect of trial-court nullity on sealing order | State: sought to undo sealing via reconsideration | Pewett: sealing order remains effective | Court held the sealing order remains in effect; the reconsideration order is void |
Key Cases Cited
- Leers v. State, 80 Ohio App.3d 579 (Ohio Ct. App.) (orders sealing records are appealable)
- Bissantz v. State, 30 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1987) (civil rules apply in expungement proceedings)
- Pitts v. Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (Ohio 1981) (Ohio rules do not provide for motions for reconsideration after final judgment)
- Fifth Third Bank v. Cooker Restaurant Corp., 137 Ohio App.3d 329 (Ohio Ct. App.) (judgments from motions for reconsideration after final judgment are nullities)