State v. R.L.M.
2014 Ohio 2661
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2008 appellee (R.L.M.) was charged with felony drug possession; that charge was dismissed April 18, 2008 at the prosecutor's request.
- On the same date (April 3, 2008) appellee received a traffic citation by the same officer; he later pleaded guilty to driving under suspension (DUS), a first-degree misdemeanor under R.C. chapter 4510.
- DUS convictions are exempt from sealing under R.C. 2953.36(B).
- Appellee applied under R.C. 2953.52 to seal the record of the dismissed drug-possession case in August 2013.
- The municipal court granted sealing; the State objected, relying on State v. Pariag and R.C. 2953.61, and appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court never determined whether the dismissed drug charge and the DUS conviction "arose as the result of or in connection with the same act," as required by Pariag.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could seal the dismissed drug-possession record despite a contemporaneous non-sealable DUS conviction | State: Pariag and R.C. 2953.61 preclude sealing if the dismissed charge arises from the same act as a non-sealable conviction; facts show same incident, so sealing is barred | R.L.M.: The municipal court granted sealing (implicitly arguing the charges did not legally preclude sealing or that the court could seal without a same-act determination) | Reversed and remanded: the trial court erred by sealing without first determining whether the dismissed drug charge and the DUS conviction arose from or in connection with the same act; remand to make that determination in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2013) (holding R.C. 2953.61 bars sealing a dismissed charge that arose "as the result of or in connection with the same act" that supports a non-sealable conviction)