State v. Schoengerger, 2015 Ohio 4870

Defendant Doyle T. Schoenberger was convicted on June 20, 2003 of a fifth-degree felony under R.C. 2903.13 (domestic violence) and sentenced to three years community control and 80 hours community service.
He also had two related misdemeanor convictions arising about the same time involving the same victim and resolved together.
On September 3, 2014 Schoenberger applied to have his criminal records sealed; the State objected, arguing (1) too many convictions and (2) the felony was an offense of violence and thus ineligible for sealing.
The trial court treated the two misdemeanors as a single conviction under R.C. 2953.31 and granted the sealing application.
The State appealed, arguing the felony conviction is an offense of violence excluded from sealing by R.C. 2953.36(C).
The appellate court reviewed eligibility de novo and reversed, holding the felony conviction for R.C. 2903.13 is an offense of violence and not eligible for sealing under R.C. 2953.36(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schoenberger's felony conviction is an "offense of violence" that is statutorily ineligible for sealing	The R.C. 2903.13 felony is an offense of violence and R.C. 2953.36(C) excludes violent felonies from sealing	The conviction should be eligible (trial court found eligibility, treating misdemeanors as one and proceeding to grant sealing)	Held: The felony under R.C. 2903.13 is an offense of violence and is excluded from sealing by R.C. 2953.36(C); reversal of trial court order sealing records

Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (1971) ("shall" construed as mandatory absent clear intent otherwise)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (applies mandatory meaning of "shall" to sealing statutes)
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620 (1999) (sealing statutes are remedial and construed liberally)
Barker v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 35 (1980) (statutes to be construed to promote remedial purpose)