In re W.D.K.
W.D.K., pro se.
HENDRICKSON, J.
{1} Appellant, W.D.K., appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying his motion to seal his juvenile records in five juvenile cases spanning from 1999 to 2002. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the juvenile court‘s decision.
{3} On October 22, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing on appellant‘s motion. At the hearing, the court heard from appellant, Amy Brown, the court‘s expungement clerk, and James Manley, a juvenile court probation supervisor. Brown indicated she had investigated appellant‘s criminal history and had obtained records from a number of sources, including the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton Municipal Court, Fairfield Municipal Court, Butler County Area Courts, Middletown Municipal Court, the Dearborn County, Indiana Sheriff‘s Department, and the Rush County, Indiana Sheriff‘s Department. Brown noted that many of appellant‘s criminal convictions had been sealed. Nonetheless, from the records Brown was able to access, it was apparent that appellant had been convicted of multiple crimes and traffic violations since reaching adulthood and that he had served at least three different prison terms. Appellant had two contempt of court convictions in 2003, grand theft convictions in 2006 and 2007 relating to the passing of bad checks, for which appellant served a 12-month prison term and was ordered to pay more than $25,000 in restitution to two financial institutions, a 2008 conviction for fraud on a financial institution, for which he served a prison sentence in Indiana, and convictions for a variety of speeding and other traffic-related offenses. Appellant also faced additional
{4} Appellant acknowledged his criminal past. He further acknowledged that even after his name was legally changed and he had obtained a new social security number, he had arrests and convictions that were processed under his old name and old social security number or sometimes under his old name but with his new social security number. Appellant denied any wrongdoing or efforts to avoid a criminal record under his new identity. He explained that because of his history with some police departments, the departments had booked him under his old name and social security number, despite appellant providing them with his new identifying information.
{5} When questioned by the court about the reason he was seeking to have his delinquency records sealed, appellant indicated “the reason for sealing it is to put it behind me and to move forward and make better choices from this point.” Appellant claimed he had “changed [his] life [and] turned it around” but his past prevented him from pursuing various jobs and opportunities. Appellant indicated he was a real estate investor and wanted to obtain various state licenses so that he could serve as an insurance agent and operate a banquet hall and swim club that served liquor.
{6} Appellant informed the juvenile court that he had successfully sealed his adult convictions in Ohio and Indiana. He represented that the state had not filed objections in his adult cases and contended that because of his success in sealing his adult convictions, it was likewise appropriate for the juvenile court to seal his delinquency cases.
{7} However, unlike in appellant‘s adult cases, there were objections filed to the sealing of appellant‘s juvenile records. The state objected to the sealing of appellant‘s juvenile records, with the prosecutor noting that he‘s “rarely seen a record as extensive as
{8} At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court indicated it would take the matter under advisement. Approximately a month later, on November 23, 2021, the juvenile court issued a brief decision denying appellant‘s motion, stating “[t]he Motion to Seal Juvenile Record filed by the defendant is not well taken and shall be denied.”
{9} Appellant appealed, raising the following as his sole assignment of error:
{10} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ARTICULATE AND CREATE A RECORD SO THAT THIS COURT COULD MEANINGFULLY REVIEW ITS DECISION.
{11} Appellant argues that the brief manner in which the juvenile court denied his motion to seal his juvenile records prevents a meaningful appellate review and limits this court to “guessing” the basis for the denial of the motion. He contends that the juvenile court‘s decision should be reversed and the matter remanded for the court to articulate the basis or reason for its decision.
{12} A trial court‘s decision denying a motion to seal a juvenile record is reviewed
{13} The sealing of a criminal record is a “privilege, not a right” and should only be granted when all statutory requirements are met. State v. Boykin, 138 Ohio St.3d 97, 2013-Ohio-4582, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498, 2009-Ohio-5590, ¶ 6.
[t]he juvenile court shall consider the sealing of records pertaining to a juvenile upon the court‘s own motion or upon the application of a person if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act other than a violation of section 2903.01 [aggravated murder], 2903.02 [murder], or 2907.02 [rape] of the Revised Code, an unruly child, or a juvenile traffic offender and if, at the time of the motion or application, the person is not under the jurisdiction of the court in relation to a complaint alleging the person to be a delinquent child.
{14} Where a prosecuting attorney has objected to the sealing of records, the court must hold a hearing on the motion to seal.
- The age of the person;
- The nature of the case;
- The cessation or continuation of delinquent, unruly, or criminal behavior;
- The education and employment history of the person;
- The granting of a new tier classification or declassification from the juvenile offender registry pursuant to section 2152.85 of the Revised Code, except for public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants;
- Any other circumstances that may relate to the rehabilitation of the person who is the subject of the records under consideration.
(Emphasis added.)
{15} The record in the present case demonstrates that the juvenile court complied with the requirements of
{16} Contrary to appellant‘s arguments, this court is not prevented from conducting a meaningful review of the denial of appellant‘s motion to seal his juvenile records. We acknowledge that “when a trial court does not make findings or otherwise explain its ruling on a motion, appellate review for abuse of discretion is more challenging, but that does not render appellate review impossible or ineffectual.” State v. Stoutamire, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0018, 2020-Ohio-4533, ¶ 11. “[I]t is useful to bear in mind the ‘fundamental
{17} Nothing in the plain language of
{18} In the present case, the record of the hearing, combined with the results of the investigation the court‘s expungement clerk conducted, provides a sufficient basis for this court‘s review of the juvenile court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to seal his juvenile records. Appellant‘s extensive juvenile record, which involved crimes that would have constituted felony fraud if committed by an adult, his multiple adult convictions, which spanned multiple years and involved multiple fraud-based offenses, and his
{19} Though the record in the present case was sufficient to allow this court‘s review without a more robust explanation from the juvenile court, we note that the best practice is for the juvenile court to set forth a detailed discussion of the factors it considered under
{20} Nonetheless, for the reasons set forth above, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled and the juvenile court‘s denial of appellant‘s motion to seal his juvenile records is hereby affirmed.
{21} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.