Strongsville v. J.M.B.
2014 Ohio 3144
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In Feb. 2011 J.M.B. was convicted in Berea Municipal Court of two first-degree misdemeanors: drug paraphernalia (R.C. 2925.14) and reckless operation.
- In Sept. 2013 J.M.B. filed to seal the record of her drug paraphernalia conviction only.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion, citing R.C. 2953.61 because the drug and traffic cases were companion matters and a traffic matter may not be sealed.
- J.M.B. appealed the denial to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
- The appeals court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered whether R.C. 2953.61 applied and whether a hearing was required before denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2953.61 bar J.M.B.’s sealing application? | City: 2953.61 applies because the drug and traffic matters arose from the same event and a traffic matter cannot be sealed. | J.M.B.: 2953.61 does not apply because both companion charges resulted in convictions (same dispositions). | Court: 2953.61 does not apply where the companion offenses have the same final disposition (both convictions). |
| May the court summarily deny an expungement motion without a hearing? | City: (implicitly) the denial was proper given statutory bar. | J.M.B.: Statute requires the trial court to set a hearing on an application to seal; summary denial without a hearing was improper. | Court: A hearing is mandatory under R.C. 2953.32(B); summary denial without a hearing was reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pariag, 137 Ohio St.3d 81, 2013-Ohio-4010, 998 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2013) (explains when R.C. 2953.61 applies to related charges)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496, 909 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2009) (standard of review for statutory interpretation precedents)
- State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498, 2009-Ohio-5590, 918 N.E.2d 497 (Ohio 2009) (discusses appellate review of legal questions)
Result: Reversed and remanded for a hearing on J.M.B.’s sealing application; statutory bar inapplicable because companion offenses had identical dispositions.