State v. R.M.
2017 Ohio 7396
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1993 R.M. pleaded guilty to attempted abduction (R.C. 2923.02 and 2905.02), was sentenced to 1.5 years and a $2,500 fine, then placed on probation after shock probation.
- In 2014 R.M. applied to seal his felony conviction record under Ohio’s expungement statutes (R.C. 2953.31–.36).
- The trial court granted the sealing, concluding the record lacked facts showing the conviction was a crime of violence.
- The State appealed, arguing that convictions for offenses statutorily defined as "offenses of violence" (including attempts) are ineligible for sealing under R.C. 2953.36(A)(3).
- The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. V.M.D. (later cited) held that attempts to commit statutory offenses of violence are themselves offenses of violence for purposes of sealing eligibility.
- On appeal this court reversed the trial court and ordered the case remanded, holding attempted abduction is an "offense of violence" and thus ineligible for sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for attempted abduction may be sealed | Attempted abduction is statutorily an offense of violence; sealing is barred | Trial court: record lacks facts showing the conviction is a crime of violence; sealing permitted | Attempted abduction is an "offense of violence"; sealing is prohibited under R.C. 2953.36(A)(3) |
| Whether "attempt" removes ineligibility where underlying offense is an offense of violence | Attempt convictions remain ineligible because R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(d) includes attempts | Defendant urged case-by-case factual inquiry into violence element | Court followed V.M.D.: statutory text treats attempts as offenses of violence; factual inquiry irrelevant |
| Standard of review for eligibility | Not disputed | Defendant relied on trial court’s exercise of discretion | Eligibility is a legal question reviewed de novo; court applied statutory interpretation |
| Whether trial court may consider offender-specific factors (age, rehabilitation, facts) | State argued statutory bar is categorical | Defendant urged consideration of facts/rehabilitation | Court held such factors cannot overcome the statutory definition; ineligibility is categorical |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. V.M.D., 71 N.E.3d 274 (Ohio 2016) (attempts to commit statutory offenses of violence are themselves "offenses of violence" for sealing eligibility)
- State v. Simon, 721 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio 1999) (expungement is a statutory privilege, not a right)
- State v. Futrall, 918 N.E.2d 497 (Ohio 2009) (eligibility issues for sealing are legal questions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Hamilton, 665 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio 1996) (expungement is an act of grace created by statute)