State v. V.M.D. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8090

In 2000 V.M.D., age 18, was indicted for aggravated robbery and related charges; the state amended the indictment to two fourth-degree felonies: attempted robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) with attempt under R.C. 2923.02) and attempted complicity in intimidation.
V.M.D. pleaded guilty to the two amended counts, received 18 months community control, and was discharged in 2001 after compliance.
In 2013 V.M.D. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to have his conviction record sealed. The state opposed, citing R.C. 2953.36, which bars sealing records of felony ‘‘offenses of violence.’u2019
The trial court denied the sealing application based on R.C. 2953.36; the court of appeals reversed, reasoning that an attempt charge layered onto a statutory provision that itself contemplates attempt made the ‘‘violence’’ element too attenuated to disqualify sealing.
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted review to decide whether attempted robbery (R.C. 2911.02 + 2923.02) is an ‘‘offense of violence’’ that makes a felony conviction ineligible for sealing under R.C. 2953.36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (V.M.D.)	Held
Whether attempted robbery is an "offense of violence" that makes a felony conviction ineligible for sealing under R.C. 2953.36	R.C. 2901.01(A)(9) defines robbery and attempts to commit robbery as offenses of violence; therefore attempted robbery is per se an offense of violence and is statutorily ineligible for sealing	Incorporation of R.C. 2923.02 into R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) is a legal fiction that results in an "attempt to attempt" robbery; because the robbery statute already contemplates attempt, the violence element is too attenuated to trigger the sealing bar	The Court held attempted robbery is an offense of violence per the statutory definition; former R.C. 2953.36(C) therefore barred sealing V.M.D.'s conviction

State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002) (statutory law in effect when an R.C. 2953.32 sealing application is filed controls)
State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (uses "expungement" as colloquial for statutory sealing)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (sealing is an act of grace; eligibility is statutory)
Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 138 (2010) (first duty in statutory interpretation is to determine whether statute is clear)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006) (when legislature is clear, courts apply statute as written)
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620 (1999) (sealing provisions are remedial and to be liberally construed)
State v. Niesen-Pennycuff, 132 Ohio St.3d 416 (2012) (discussion of expungement/sealing policy and purpose)