State v. T.S.
2017 Ohio 7395
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2008 T.S. pled guilty to drug possession, possession of criminal tools (with forfeiture specs), and one count of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(A); the child alleged to be the subject of the offense was born in 2003.
- She received two years of community control and completed the sanctions.
- In 2014 T.S. moved to seal (expunge) her convictions under R.C. 2953.31 et seq.; the state filed opposition arguing statutory ineligibility due to the child-endangering conviction.
- At the 2015 sealing hearing no prosecutor appeared; the trial court granted the motion and sealed the record.
- The state appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because R.C. 2953.36 barred expungement where the victim of the offense was under 18 (later amended to 16).
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the statute applied and reversed, holding the child-endangering conviction made T.S. ineligible and, under Futrall, barred sealing the remaining convictions under the same case number.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant expungement where one conviction involved a child victim | The state: R.C. 2953.36 bars sealing convictions involving victims under 18 (as then-worded), so the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief | T.S.: Her R.C. 2919.22(A) conviction is not an offense of violence (unlike 2919.22(B)), and no evidence at hearing identified an actual child victim | Held: The plea admitted the victim’s age (born 2003); the child-endangering conviction rendered her ineligible under R.C. 2953.36 and deprived the court of jurisdiction to seal any convictions in that case number |
| Whether the prosecutor’s absence at the sealing hearing waived the state’s right to challenge eligibility | State: Presence not required if objection filed; statutory process requires consideration of state’s objections | T.S.: The state’s failure to appear should preclude the court from denying relief | Held: Absence did not deprive the court of authority to consider the filed objection; the prior filing preserved the issue |
| Whether a conviction under R.C. 2919.22(A) can be treated differently than other subsections for expungement eligibility | State: Any child-endangering conviction necessarily involves a minor victim and is covered by the statute | T.S.: Only subsection (B) are violent offenses that trigger ineligibility | Held: Court agrees with precedent that a plea to child endangering admits the element of a minor victim and makes the conviction statutorily ineligible |
| Whether sealing some convictions is permissible when one conviction is statutorily ineligible under the same case number | State: Under Futrall, if one conviction is ineligible, the court must deny sealing for all convictions tied to that case number | T.S.: Not argued effectively | Held: Court applies Futrall and holds all convictions under the case number cannot be sealed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (when one conviction in a case is statutorily ineligible for sealing, the trial court cannot seal the remaining convictions)
- State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002) (the statutory version in effect at filing controls eligibility for sealing)
- State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (1999) (expungement hearings are informational rather than adversarial; courts must consider prosecution’s objections)