Stow v. S.B.
2015 Ohio 4473
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In May 2010 S.B. was charged in separate case numbers with public indecency (misdemeanor) and an OVI-related traffic offense; he pleaded guilty to public indecency and an amended physical-control DUI offense and was sentenced to a fine and suspended jail term.
- Three years later S.B. moved to seal the record of his public indecency conviction under former R.C. 2953.32(A)(1), which generally allows sealing of a misdemeanor conviction one year after final discharge if the offender is eligible.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding R.C. 2953.61 and State v. Pariag prevented sealing because the criminal and traffic convictions arose from the same act and one of the offenses (the traffic conviction) was statutorily unsealable.
- On appeal, the Ninth District reviewed the sealing statutes de novo and examined whether R.C. 2953.61 applied given the dispositions of S.B.’s companion cases.
- The court held R.C. 2953.61 only applies where multiple charges resulted in different final dispositions; because both of S.B.’s charges resulted in convictions, R.C. 2953.61 did not bar sealing of the public indecency conviction.
- The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine eligibility under R.C. 2953.32 and to exercise its discretion on the sealing factors in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2953.61 barred sealing of S.B.'s public indecency conviction when companion traffic conviction was unsealable | S.B.: R.C. 2953.61 does not apply because both companion cases resulted in convictions (same disposition) so sealing under R.C. 2953.32 is available | City: R.C. 2953.61 and State v. Pariag prevent sealing because the convictions arose from the same act and one conviction is statutorily unsealable | Court: R.C. 2953.61 applies only when companion charges have different dispositions; it did not apply here because both charges ended in convictions, so trial court erred to rely on Pariag |
| Whether trial court should have decided eligibility under R.C. 2953.32 on the record | S.B.: Trial court must apply R.C. 2953.32 eligibility criteria and discretionary factors now | City: (argued in trial court) relied on R.C. 2953.61 to deny motion without full R.C. 2953.32 analysis | Court: Remanded for the trial court to determine eligibility under R.C. 2953.32 and then exercise discretion on sealing factors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81 (2013) (R.C. 2953.61 can bar sealing of related records when charges arising from the same act have differing dispositions)
- State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (interpretation of sealing statutes and limits on partial sealing when same case contains sealable and unsealable offenses)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (distinguishing which sealing statute—R.C. 2953.32 or 2953.52—applies based on whether conviction occurred)