State v. Widener
2014 Ohio 333
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Chad Widener, a teacher, pled guilty in 2009 in Miami County Juvenile Court (Common Pleas, Juvenile Division) to contributing to the delinquency of a child (R.C. 2919.24), a first-degree misdemeanor, arising from sexual electronic conversations and contact with a minor.
- Sentenced to six months jail (10 days served), two years probation, community service, a fine, and surrender of his teaching license; sentence was completed and no proceedings pending when he applied to seal the record.
- In April 2013 Widener filed an application to seal his conviction record under Ohio’s sealing statutes (R.C. 2953.31 et seq.). The State opposed.
- The trial court found Widener rehabilitated and concluded the conviction was eligible for sealing, reasoning that R.C. 2953.36(E) lists specific sex offenses ineligible for sealing and does not include contributing to the delinquency of a child; it therefore granted the application.
- The State appealed, arguing the conviction was ineligible under R.C. 2953.36(F), which bars sealing of first-degree misdemeanors or felonies where the victim was under 18.
- The appellate court reversed: it held R.C. 2953.36(F) plainly applies to Widener’s conviction, making it ineligible for sealing, and the trial court erred in deeming the statute ambiguous or invoking public-policy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a first-degree misdemeanor conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a child is ineligible for sealing when the victim is a minor under R.C. 2953.36 | State: R.C. 2953.36(F) bars sealing of first-degree misdemeanors when the victim is under 18; Widener’s conviction is therefore ineligible. | Widener: Statute is ambiguous; subsection (E) lists sex offenses involving minors and omits contributing, so that omission indicates contributing should be sealable; trial court relied on ejusdem generis and policy. | Held: R.C. 2953.36(F) plainly applies; conviction is ineligible for sealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (Ohio 2000) (expungement is a statutory privilege, not a right)
- State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (Ohio 1996) (expungement is an act of grace by the state)
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2013) (continues usage of term “expungement” to describe sealing under R.C. 2953.31 et seq.)