State v. V.M.D., 148 Ohio St. 3d 450

In 2000 Y.M.D. (then 18) was indicted on aggravated-robbery and related charges; the state amended Count 1 to robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) and then to attempted robbery by incorporating the attempt statute R.C. 2923.02, leaving two fourth‑degree felonies after plea.
The amended robbery allegation charged that, in attempting or committing a theft offense, the defendant used or threatened the immediate use of force (the state later conceded the gun involved may have been fake and not in his possession).
The trial court accepted guilty pleas, placed Y.M.D. on community control, and later discharged him after compliance.
In 2013 Y.M.D. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal his conviction record; the state opposed, citing former R.C. 2953.36(C) which barred sealing convictions for felony "offenses of violence."
The trial court denied sealing; the Eighth District reversed, reasoning that an attempt charged where the underlying statute itself contemplates attempt left the violence element too attenuated to bar sealing. The state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Y.M.D.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether attempted robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) with R.C. 2923.02) is an "offense of violence" that makes a felony conviction ineligible for sealing under R.C. 2953.36	Incorporation of the attempt statute produced an "attempt to attempt" illogic; R.C. 2911.02 already contemplates attempt, so the conviction should not automatically be treated as an offense of violence	R.C. 2901.01 defines robbery and attempts to commit robbery as "offenses of violence"; statutory ineligibility for sealing applies regardless of underlying factual violence	Held: Attempted robbery is per statute an "offense of violence" and former R.C. 2953.36(C) barred sealing; trial court judgment reinstated

State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002) (statutory law in effect at time of sealing application controls)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (sealing records is a statutory act of grace; no substantive right to sealing)
Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 138 (2010) (first duty is to determine whether statute is clear and unambiguous)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006) (apply statute as written when legislative intent is plain)
State v. Niesen-Pennycuff, 132 Ohio St.3d 416 (2012) (expungement statutes construed liberally but within statutory bounds)
State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (terminology note: "sealing" and colloquial "expungement")