State v. S.D.A., 2017 Ohio 8414

Defendant S.D.A. was indicted on two counts of violating a protection order (R.C. 2919.27(A)(2)); prior conviction elevated the offenses to fifth-degree felonies.
She entered and successfully completed intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) under R.C. 2951.041; the trial court dismissed the case on November 22, 2016.
On December 1, 2016, S.D.A. filed a pro se application to seal the record under R.C. 2953.52(A). The State did not file a written objection.
The trial court denied the sealing application at a January 10, 2017 proceeding and in a written entry, citing a governmental need to retain the dismissal records because of the serious nature of the offenses and the defendant’s prior TPO convictions.
The record did not contain a scheduling entry or other proof that the court notified the defendant or the prosecutor of the January 10 hearing; the State later supplemented the record with a short transcript of that proceeding.
S.D.A. appealed, arguing the court denied her application without providing the statutorily required hearing and without notice; the appellate court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2953.52’s mandatory hearing and notice requirements before denying sealing application	State: Court held a hearing on Jan. 10, 2017; defendant failed to appear	S.D.A.: No notice of hearing was given; she did not know a hearing was scheduled	Reversed — court did not comply: no docketed scheduling entry or proof of notice to prosecutor or defendant; statutory hearing and notice required
Whether denial without a proper hearing violates due process	State: Implicitly that procedure satisfied	S.D.A.: Denial without notice/hearing deprived her of procedural due process	Held that due process requires movant receive notice; docket entry or other notice required
Whether prosecutor received statutorily required notice/opportunity to object	State: Claims compliance; no objection filed	S.D.A.: No evidence prosecutor was notified prior to hearing	Held insufficient record to show prosecutor received notice; statutory requirement unmet
Whether trial court appropriately weighed governmental need vs. defendant’s interest on this record	State: Governmental need to maintain records due to prior offenses	S.D.A.: Could not present evidence/argument because of lack of notice/hearing	Because statutory hearing/notice absent, trial court’s balancing was procedurally defective; remand for proper proceedings

State v. Davis, 175 Ohio App.3d 318 (2008) (hearing requirement under R.C. 2953.52 is mandatory)
Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (1986) (docket entry can constitute constructive notice; due process requires notice of hearing)