State v. S.D.A., 2017 Ohio 8415

Defendant S.D.A. was indicted for felony violation of a protection order but was granted intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) and, after successful completion, the court dismissed the case.
On December 1, 2016, S.D.A. filed an application to seal the record under R.C. 2953.52; the State did not file a written objection.
The trial court purportedly held (or scheduled) a hearing on January 10, 2017; no written scheduling entry appears in the clerk’s docket and S.D.A. was not aware of any hearing.
A January 10, 2017 courtroom entry shows the judge denied the sealing application, citing a governmental need to retain records due to prior protection-order convictions.
The court issued a written entry denying the application, but the appellate court found no proof the prosecutor had been notified as required or that S.D.A. received adequate notice of the hearing.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the statutory hearing-and-notice requirements (and due process notice) were not satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2953.52’s hearing/notice requirements when denying sealing application	State: Trial court held the statutorily required hearing and defendant failed to attend	S.D.A.: No hearing was scheduled or she received notice; denial occurred without a hearing	Reversed: Court did not comply with R.C. 2953.52; statutory hearing and notice to prosecutor and movant required
Whether due process required notice to the movant of the sealing hearing	State: Not raised as distinct — argued compliance with statute	S.D.A.: She received no notice and thus lacked opportunity to be heard	Held: Due process requires movant receive notice; docket lacked scheduling entry and constructive notice inadequate
Whether prosecutor received required notice and opportunity to object	State: Implicitly argued prosecutor was notified/attended	S.D.A.: No evidence prosecutor was notified prior to hearing	Held: No evidence prosecutor received statutorily required notice; record insufficient
Whether governmental need justified denial without full statutory procedure	State: Governmental interest in maintaining records due to prior convictions	S.D.A.: Even if interest exists, statutory process must be followed first	Held: Court must follow statutory hearing/notice procedures before weighing governmental need; failure requires reversal

State v. Davis, 886 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio App. 2008) (R.C. 2953.52 hearing requirement is mandatory)
Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (docket entry may constitute constructive notice, but due process requires reasonable notice of hearing)